Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 88

U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV-


ICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRA-
TION, AND NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE BUDGET
REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2002

OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,


WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

May 3, 2001

Serial No. 107-24

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE


72-133 PS WASHINGTON : 2002

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office


Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. Billy Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Joel Hefley, Colorado Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California Adam Smith, Washington
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina Jay Inslee, Washington
Mac Thornberry, Texas Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Jim Gibbons, Nevada James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. Butch Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff


Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS


WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
W.J. Billy Tauzin, Louisiana Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Vice Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Richard W. Pombo, California
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

(II)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
C O N T E N T S

Page
Hearing held on May 3, 2001 ................................................................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas .......................................................................................................... 4
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4
New York Times article dated May 2, 2001, entitled Two Breeds
of Survivor: Gulf Shrimp and Texas Shrimpers submitted for the
record ...................................................................................................... 28
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam ................ 2
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Gudes, Scott B., Acting Under Secretary and Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce ...................................................................................................... 5
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10
Jones, Marshall, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior ................................................................. 31
Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33
Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 66

(III)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

Thursday, May 3, 2001


U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room


1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MARYLAND
Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Sub-
committee. We will examine the budget priorities of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for the upcoming year.
In terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service, we were basically
pleased that the administration has requested an increase of $14
million for the National Wildlife Refuge System and full funding
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
We were somewhat disappointed in the $9 million decrease for
endangered species, and I am troubled by the artificial cap that the
administration has proposed for ESA listing funds. I look forward
to a justification of these decisions and a thorough explanation of
the new proposed landowner incentive program and private stew-
ardship grant program.
In terms of NOAA, we strongly support the proposed increases
for the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the Coastal Zone
Management Program, the National Sea Grant College Program,
navigation services, and ocean exploration.
While funding for fisheries management programs has been re-
stored to pre-CARA Lite funding contained in the consolidated ap-
propriations act, I was pleased to see additional money for blue
crab, blue fish, and striped bass studies; a $2.5 million increase for
(1)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
2

the eight regional fishery management councils; and $2 million


more to protect highly endangered right whales.
There are accounts, like the National Estuarine Research Re-
serves, for which we will require additional resources. But on bal-
ance, this is a defensible budget request for the wet programs of
NOAA.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and
hope that members will ask probing questions on these budget re-
quests. This is the members best chance to inquire about any pro-
gram under the jurisdiction of these two agencies.
Gentlemen, we thank you for coming this morning. We look for-
ward to your testimony, and we have some interesting, probing in-
quiries for all of you this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, today the Subcommittee will examine the budget priorities of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration for the upcoming year.
In terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I was pleased that the Administration
has requested an increase of $14 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System
and full funding for the land and water conservation fund. I was disappointed in
the $9 million decrease for endangered species and I am troubled by the artificial
cap that the Administration has proposed for ESA Listing funds. I look forward to
a justification of these decisions and a thorough explanation of the new proposed
landowner incentive program and private stewardship grant program.
In terms of NOAA, I strongly support the proposed increases for the National Ma-
rine Sanctuary Program, the Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Sea
Grant College Program, navigation services, and ocean exploration.
While funding for fisheries management programs has been restored to the pre
CARA lite funding contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, I was pleased
to see additional money for blue crab, blue fish and striped bass studies; a $2.5 mil-
lion increase for the eight regional fishery management councils and $2 million
more to protect highly endangered right whales.
There are accounts, like the National Estuarine Research Reserves, which will re-
quire additional resources, but on balance this is a defensible budget request for the
wet programs of NOAA.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and hope that Mem-
bers will ask probing questions on these budget requests. This is the Memberss best
chance to inquiry about any program under the jurisdiction of these two agencies.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for any opening statement that he may have
at this time.

Mr. GILCHREST. I now yield to Mr. Underwood.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A


DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing on the Fiscal Year 2002 budget requests
for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration. I appreciate the opportunity to learn
more about these requests and to ask questionsprobing ques-
tionson those areas of particular relevance to not only to my con-
stituents but, I think, to people across the country.
As you can understand, Guam has a definite interest in the fund-
ing of both these agencies and their important programs. And as
a committee, we have a firm responsibility to ensure that the funds

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
3

appropriated to these agencies are used in a responsible manner


and for the benefit of people in the entire country.
In general, I am pleased to see President Bush recognizes the im-
portance and relevance of NOAAs ocean, coastal, and fisheries pro-
grams, and has maintained or increased funding in vital areas. I
am especially interested in learning more about NOAAs ocean ex-
ploration initiative.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, on the other hand, does not seem
to have fared so well, unfortunately, in some areas. There are, of
course, certain programs for which I would like to see more done,
including management and eradication of invasive species, such as
the brown tree snake in Guam, which has decimated native bird
populations.
In addition, I am concerned about specific Fish and Wildlife
Service grant programs which have been zero funded with no as-
surance that they will be funded under a newly expanded Land
and Water Conservation Fund stateside program. I will ask more
about this after hearing from our witnesses.
I think it is important to reiterate the important tasks that these
agencies are responsible for in preserving and, more and more, re-
storing the natural environment in which we live. Coastal Zone
Management, coral reef protection, the National Wildlife Refuge
System, the Marine Sanctuary Program, and migratory bird man-
agement are all vital services provided to this country by these
agencies.
The Congress must continue to provide sufficient funding to en-
sure that these agencies are able to fulfill their missions. Only by
paying now and spending wisely will we ensure that we do not
incur greater costs in the future for protecting and utilizing our
natural environment and its resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, A Delegate to Congress
from Guam
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on the Fis-
cal Year 2002 budget requests for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I appreciate the opportunity to
learn more about these requests and to ask questions on those areas of particular
relevance to my constituents.
As you can understand, Guam has a definite interest in the funding of both these
agencies and their important programs. And as a Committee, we have a firm re-
sponsibility to ensure that the funds appropriated to these agencies are used in a
responsible manner and for the benefit of all the people of the United States.
In general, I am pleased to see President Bush recognizes the importance and rel-
evance of NOAAs ocean, coastal and fisheries programs and has maintained or in-
creased funding in vital areas. I am especially interested in learning more about
NOAAs ocean exploration initiative.
The Fish and Wildlife Service does not seem to have fared so well, unfortunately,
in some areas. There are, of course, certain programs for which I would like to see
more done, including management and eradication of invasive species, such as the
brown tree snake in Guam which has decimated native bird populations.
In addition, I am concerned about several specific Fish and Wildlife Service grant
programs which have been zero funded with no assurance that they will be funded
under a newly expanded Land and Water Conservation Fund state-side program. I
will ask more about this after hearing from our witnesses.
I think it is important to reiterate the important tasks these agencies are respon-
sible for in preserving, and more and more restoring, the natural environment in
which we live. Coastal zone management, coral reef protection, the National Wildlife

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
4
Refuge System, the Marine Sanctuary Program and migratory bird management are
all vital services provided to this country by these agencies.
The Congress must continue to provide sufficient funding to ensure that these
agencies are able to fulfill their missions. Only by paying now and spending wisely
will we ensure that we do not incur greater costs in the future for protecting and
utilizing our natural environment and its resources.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.


Mr. Ortiz?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A


REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. ORTIZ. I would just like to request that my statement be in-
cluded in the record.
Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Underwood, thank you for holding this
hearing this morning. I am glad to see our witnesses this morning and am very in-
terested in hearing what they have to say about their funding needs.
It is my hope that we will find some money to help our hard-working men and
women in the fishing industries. They are being hammered almost monthly by op-
pressive regulations that are slowly, but surely, putting them out of business. These
are not just people worried about their livelihoods and families. In many cases, we
are losing a culture and way of life that has been diligently carried on for genera-
tions.
If we were concerned, would we not dedicate the money needed substantiate these
regulations? I have been in meeting after meeting where our fishery regulators have
said that their Red Snapper database has holes in it and need large gaps filled, but
I never see any requests for help with funding research for these needs. Instead,
I keep hearing that the best data available is being used..
I believe we need to do our homework and know why we are putting people out
of jobs if that is what we have to do to sustain our fisheries. Under the current situ-
ation, we are spending too much of our needed funding in court trying to defend
inadequate databases.
Mr Chairman, thank you again for this hearing. I look forward to working with
you and the members of this committee on this issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. Unfortunately, gentlemen, we will probably have


a series of votes at 10 oclock.
I think, Scott, you have to leave at 10?
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. So we will do what we can between now and 10
oclock. And we wish you well in the next hearing.
Scott, we will start with you.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
5
STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY
FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY
MARGARET DAVIDSON, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION; BILL HOGARTH, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION; LOUISA KOCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. GUDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Secretary Evans and our 12,500 men and women in
NOAA working around the country, I really want to thank you for
this opportunity to testify on behalf of our Fiscal Year 2002 budget
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I also want to thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Congressman
Underwood, Congressman Ortiz, and the members of this com-
mittee, and the professional staff of this committeeJohn Rayfield,
Dave Whaley, Dave Jansen, Jean Flemma, all the professional
stafffor your continued interest and support for NOAA.
The overall NOAA budget this year, the administrations budget,
is $3.152 billion. That is some $61 million below the current level.
Our budget has about $330 million in reductions and about $270
million in increases, some of which you talked about, Mr. Chair-
man.
Secretary Evans has asked us to invest in high-priority areas
that are about the most core issues, and we have done that. We
are presenting you with one of the strongest NOAA budgets ever
presented, I believe, by any administration.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other overall point. In the
budget business, we think and talk in terms of changes, pluses and
minuses; I was just doing some of that. But NOAA has often come
up here with budgets, in the Presidents budgets, that propose re-
ducing items that are of great interest to Congress and to this Sub-
committee and to us. And this year, to the extent practical, we
have sought to narrow these differences and fund items at or
slightly above the levels enacted by Congress last December.
So, for example, the Sea Grant program, a key NOAA program,
is at $62.4 million. This is only the second year in the last 20 years
that we have come back with the same level as Congress, and it
is really great.
Hydrographic survey by the private sector, a big interest in
these; charters are included at $20.4 million.
The National Undersea Research Program, with centers in New
Jersey and Hawaii, is at $13.8 million, the first time ever that we
have been able to bring that fully in the Presidents budget.
Steller sea lion research, we are at $40 million. The research pro-
gram is at $40 million, slightly below the level that Congress added
last year.
And as you said, Mr. Chairmanyou talked about it last year
blue fish and striped bass need research. Well, I am happy the
Presidents budget is requesting, in fact, a little above the level the
Congress appropriated, $1.5 million. They are two very, very im-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
6

portant recreational species in Maryland, New Jersey, all along the


east coast of the United States.
Let me turn to a quick summary of this $270 million of increases
that we proposed back to Congress. Let me go to the slide that says
People.
When we are testifying in Congress, people always say, Well,
thats great. Youve given us all these proposals. But whats your
highest priority? Well, what I am going to tell you today, Mr.
Chairman, members of the committee, is that my highest priority
as acting administrator is our people of NOAA, supporting our peo-
ple, supporting the human resources mandatory costs sometimes
called, in the budget business, adjustments to base: the cost-of-
living adjustments, inflation, benefits, GSA rent--$60 million for
this.
This is about truth in budgeting, I believe, keeping current serv-
ices for our programs. It is about not hollowing out our programs
and our laboratories. We have the greatest, most motivated work-
force in NOAA, on behalf of Americans, and we need to support
them.
Turn to the next slide, infrastructure. Equipment, facilities,
maintenance, what I call infrastructure, we have not traditionally
done well in this area at NOAA. We need help enabling NOAA not
just to do our mission this year and be the premier oceanic and at-
mospheric agency, but it is really about enabling us to do our job
in future years.
The requested $3 million is for our Honolulu fisheries laboratory,
which is co-located at the University of Hawaii. It is non-ADA
Americans with Disabilities Actcompliant. It has a number of
structural facility problems, and we need to get on with addressing
that facility requirement and replacing that laboratory.
A total of $1 million is for our National Oceans Service Fisheries
Beaufort, North Carolina, laboratory. It is the second oldest marine
science laboratory in the nation, behind Woods Hole. And we just
celebrated the 100th anniversary there.
An increase of $1.7 million for overall safety and environmental
issues at NOAA facilities overall. And I believe this is the first time
we have been able to get a request like this in the budget.
And $5.8 million is for overall modernization to two of our NOAA
fisheries vessels: the Albatross IV, which is based in Woods Hole,
our workhorse for northeast surveys; and the Gordon Gunter in
Pascagoula.
Next slide, coastal conservation activities. Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, we are requesting $284.4 million for
a number of our coastal conservation programs. The budget in-
cludes the full $27 million that Congress provided for coral reef
programs last year, and a $700,000 increase for satellite work to
look at coral reef issues, one of the really great products that our
satellite service has been able to provide resource managers.
Coral reefs are a major interest to this Subcommittee, for NOAA,
and, in fact, I co-chair the Coral Reef Task Force. In Fiscal Year
2001, 74 percent of our resources that Congress provided for coral
reefs are going for work, restoration, research for coral reefs in the
Pacific.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
7

The $16.6 million increase, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, is


really for marine sanctuaries, for a total program of $52 million.
These are, of course, really underwater national parks, if you will.
Most of this is for education facilities, to bring these sanctuaries
really to the American people. And $6.5 million of this amount is
to fully fund the completion of the Dr. Nancy Foster Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary complex in Key West.
A $12.2 million increase is included for coastal zone management
programs. And the reductions in the National Estuarine Research
Reserves programs (NERRS), are really about taking out one-time
earmarks. So the operations grants to the states for NERRS go up
by $1.7 million, and land acquisition and facilities are requested at
$9.9 million.
Obviously, I dont need to come tell this Subcommittee about the
importance of coastal issues, like loss of wetlands and water qual-
ity and coastal storms and the special nature of our 25 National
Estuarine Research Reserves around the country, from Maryland
to California.
And, finally, our budget continues to provide $90 million for Pa-
cific coastal salmon grants, part of more than $184 million that
NOAA spends on this important resource.
Next slide, modernization of NOAA fisheries. With respect to
fisheries, it is my view that our budget responds to the leadership
of this committee and Congress. Our budget seeks to modernize the
National Marine Fisheries Service, or NOAA fisheries, as we call
it, and proposes increases to meet existing statutory and regulatory
requirements of Magnuson-Stevens, National Energy Policy
Act(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other statutes.
This is an area in which I have put a lot of personal attention
in the last 2 years. Last year, I requested Ray Kammer, the direc-
tor of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to per-
form a study to take a look at our fisheries service and the budget
and the requirements.
And Bill Hogarth is here today. In Bill Hogarth, you have an act-
ing director of NOAA fisheries who is changing the way we do busi-
ness. He is reaching out to our partners, our constituents. He is
conducting business in a much more open way and really working
with the councils and the states. He just got all the marine man-
agers together, from all the states. It is the first time we have done
that in a number of years.
Our budget does the right thing: It invests in science, in manage-
ment, and in enforcement. It also maintains many of the increases
provided by Congress last year, from the red snapper surveys to
NEPA compliance. I will just highlight a few of these fisheries ini-
tiatives.
An increase of $13.3 million is requested for expanding and im-
proving stock assessments. This will add 829 days by charter to do
surveys. This is about getting the data that we need to support the
science behind our regulatory framework that the fisheries man-
agement councils need as well.
An increase of $2 million is requested for fisheries oceanography,
looking at the larger ecosystem issues affecting fisheries, again re-
sponding to a couple comments made by this committee.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
8

An amount of $4 million is for additional fishery observers and


improving data collection. Increasingly, fishery observersthese
young men and women who go to sea on these commercial ves-
selsare essential to managing fisheries and marine mammal
stocks.
An increase of $2 million for a total of $10 million is requested
for the community-based habitat restoration program. This is a
partnership with groups like the American Sport Fishing Associa-
tion, National Fisheries Institute (NFI), the Nature Conservancy.
It makes a real impact, a real difference, and provides leverage of
about 4-to-1 in terms of funding.
I have often taken part in these grassroots efforts. Just 2 weeks
ago, I was in coastal Louisiana, trying to save some wetlands. Last
weekend, I was taking part in coastal restoration down on the
Magothy River, just north of Annapolis.
An increase of $2.5 million, as you point out, Mr. Chairman, is
for regional fishery management councils. They are the cornerstone
of how we manage fisheries in this country. They have those ad-
justments to base, just like we do as well. They need support, and
I am proud that the Presidents budget does that.
Also, $7.5 million is for protected species and management, like
sea turtles, right whales, dolphins, and salmon.
And $10 million is for enforcement and for vessel monitoring as-
sistance, an essential program.
Next slide, climate services. Climate is, of course, a major area
of science and research for NOAA. Much of what we know is due
to the long-term monitoring and observations that NOAA has made
for over 40 years in places like Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where we
do observation of CO2 every day.
Climate is both seasonalwe look at if it will be warmer, the
weather, this summeras well as longer term, such as: What is
happening with global atmospheric and sea surface temperatures?
What do we think will happen?
Climate is about real world issues, Mr. Chairman, like water lev-
els or west coast salmon and hydropower, about sea levels rising,
drought. In fact, it is an essential ingredient to be able to forecast
harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay. Understanding
Pfiesteria is about understanding whether or not we are having a
drought.
Climate is, of course, an oceanic issue. As the oceans are chang-
ing, they drive the world climate system. And our budget proposes
an increase of $16.5 million for climate services.
I will just point out that there is $7.3 million for ocean systems.
For example, an increase of $3.2 million is included for the ARGO
profiling float survey. These are like a weather balloon system, if
you will, for the oceans. We are working to obtain a 3,000-float sys-
tem worldwide. This budget gets us up to about 275 floats per year
from NOAA.
And $4.1 million completes support for other ocean observational
components, including Arctic Ocean fluxes, ocean reference sta-
tions, volunteer observing ship obligations.
Modernization of the Marine Transportation System. In 1988,
Congress directed Federal agencies to produce an assessment of the
U.S. maritime transportation system and a plan for modernizing

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
9

government navigation services. I testified before you last year on


our efforts to modernize both programs, and this budget does step
up to show what we are doing in our oldest mission in NOAA,
which goes all the way back to 1807 when Thomas Jefferson said
that we needed to map the coast for safety for Americans. This is
about safety, jobs, and economic competitiveness.
Included in this request is $9.5 million to complete the refurbish-
ment of the FAIRWEATHER, a ship that we have had in mothballs
in Seattle, which will be working in Alaska, where we have some
of our biggest backlogs, so we really need this one now.
Included is $3.6 million for electronic navigation charts, and an
increase of $1 million is for shoreline mapping by contract.
And $3 million is for our coastal storms initiative, which is about
using better sensors, bathymetric data, and storm models to help
coastal communities deal with severe storms and flooding and the
fact that more and more of the population is in the coastal areas.
The final slide is ocean exploration. We are requesting $14 mil-
lion for NOAA ocean exploration. That is an increase of $10 million
over the $4 million Congress provided last year. This is about ex-
ploring new computers and resources from the sea, Americas herit-
age, and something called the Census of Marine Life, which is look-
ing at the ocean canyons and shelves before the fishing industry
moves to exploit those resources, so we know what is out there.
We are moving out this summer with the funds that Congress
provided, and we will be conducting a series of exploration dives
and submersible work off the east coast in the canyons, off the west
coast in the vents, and in the seafloor study area in the Gulf of
Mexico. These are really voyages of discovery that will map the
physical, chemical, biological, and archaeological treasures of the
United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
So much of our marine climate, Mr. Chairman, remains un-
charted and unexplored. Only a small percentage of marine species
have been categorized.
Last year, we had an ocean exploration panel, chaired by Dr.
Marcia McNutt and included Dr. Bob Ballard, Shirley Pomponi,
and a number of experts in ocean exploration. And they pointed out
to us that some 95 percent of our oceans have really not been ex-
plored.
NOAA really has not stepped up to this mandate that was estab-
lished by the Stratton Commission back when our agency was cre-
ated, but we are doing so now. And it is in partnership with other
Federal agencies like the National Science Foundation and the
Navy.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, ocean exploration is about education
and outreach. It is about reaching schools and kids across this
country and including them in this voyage of discovery.
In fact, 10 percent of anything that this Congress gives us for
ocean exploration will be used for education and outreach. It is part
of the program. NOAA, in its entirety, I really do believe, is about
creating the next generation of marine biologists, oceanographers,
cartographers, and, yes, explorers.
And the final slide I gave you is a depiction of our Web site,
www.noaa.gov. The people here with me worked hard re-
engineering our Web site. In todays age, that is part of how we get

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
10

these products that this Committee and this Congress invest in out
to the American public. And I am very proud of this.
When I go around the country, one of the things that really
makes it worthwhile for me is when teachers and students and citi-
zens come up to me and they tell me, You know that Web site,
www.noaa.gov? Thats great. We were able to get the satellite im-
agery, or track that hurricane or learn about whales or estuaries.
It is about that, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to say again that we do very much appreciate
the support of you and the Subcommittee, and we look forward to
working with you as we have in the past.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this oppor-
tunity to testify on the Presidents Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Request for the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Let me begin by saying that NOAA, a key component of the Department of Com-
merce, plays a vital role in the everyday lives of our citizens through our numerous
contributions to the Nations economic and environmental health. In a period of
strongly competing Government priorities, the Presidents Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
Request for NOAA is $3,152.3 million in total budget authority for NOAA and rep-
resents a decrease of $60.8 million below the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted levels. With-
in this funding level, NOAA proposes essential realignments that allow for a total
of $270.0 million in program increases in critical areas such as infrastructure, se-
vere weather prediction, coastal conservation, living marine resources, and climate.
The funding requested in the Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget Request will
allow NOAA to ensure that our vision for environmental stewardship and assess-
ment and prediction of the Nations resources becomes a reality and that NOAA will
continue to excel in our science and service for the American people.
From safe navigation to coastal services, fisheries management to climate re-
search and ocean exploration, NOAA is at the forefront of many of this Nations
most critical issues. NOAAs people, products and services provide vital support to
the domestic security and global competitiveness of the United States, and positively
impact the lives of our citizens, directly and indirectly, every single day.
NOAAs mission is to describe and predict changes in the Earths environment
and to conserve and manage the Nations coastal and marine resources to ensure
sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA implements its mission through its line
and staff offices: the National Ocean Service (NOS); the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS); the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); the Na-
tional Weather Service (NWS); the National Environmental, Satellite, Data and In-
formation Service (NESDIS); the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO);
and Corporate Services (CS).
Today, the Nation and the world look to NOAA to provide timely and precise
weather forecasts that protect lives and property; to manage fisheries and protected
species; to promote and sustain healthy coastlines; to make America more competi-
tive through safe navigation; to examine changes in the oceans; and to inspire and
create approaches that will protect and keep our precious natural resources alive
for the generations to come.
NOAA conducts research to develop new technologies, improve operations, and
supply the scientific basis for managing natural resources and solving environ-
mental problems. NOAAs comprehensive system for acquiring observations from
satellites and radars to ships and submersibles provides critical data and quality
information needed for the safe conduct of daily life and the basic functioning of a
modern society.
NOAAs products and services include nautical charts, marine fisheries statistics
and regulations, assessments of environmental changes, hazardous materials re-
sponse information, and stewardship of the Nations ocean, coastal, and living ma-
rine resources.
NOAAs programs for Fiscal Year 2002 support several key cross-cutting initia-
tives. These cross-cutting initiatives illustrate the degree to which NOAAs pro-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
11
grams are inter-related. Each of the component programs within a cross-cutting ini-
tiative uniquely contributes to NOAAs ability to meet its mission.
The Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget Request supports NOAAs cross-cutting
initiatives, each of which is I will discuss in greater detail.
People and Infrastructure
The request for the People and Infrastructure cross-cutting initiative brings to-
gether the heart of what NOAA is and does. These are the underlying and inter-
connecting threads that hold NOAA and its programs together. Investments in
NOAAs scientific and technical workforce and NOAAs facilities and equipment is
essential to the agency carrying on its mission into the 21st Century. People and
Infrastructure is about investing in the future.
People
NOAA requests $60.0 million in base adjustments that are critical to preserve and
develop NOAAs human capital, our greatest asset. The demand for NOAAs sci-
entific work products and services is expected to increase significantly in Fiscal Year
2002 and beyond. This trend is evidenced by market responses to increasingly accu-
rate seasonal forecasts, protection of life and safety, competing interests for marine
resources and the need to protect and recover endangered species, and the applica-
tion in pharmaceutical manufacturing of the earliest rewards from increased ocean
exploration. Similar increases in demand for NOAAs products and services are ex-
pected from the national energy community and other potential user communities.
To ensure NOAAs mission capacity is adequate to respond to these demands, NOAA
must continue to invest in its people.
This investment will ensure NOAAs programs are maintained at the current
services level. These are must-pay bills like pay raises, benefits, inflation, and
rent. Failure to receive these adjustments in any given year results in program dis-
locations and minor cutbacks. Failure to receive these adjustments over time has
a cumulative erosion effect that can be programmatically devastating. Consequently,
these adjustments to NOAAs funding base are essential for NOAA to continue
meeting core mission-related requirements and the expectations of the American
public.
Infrastructure
NOAAs facilities and information technology infrastructure directly and imme-
diately impacts the ability of NOAAs program offices to satisfy mission demands.
The condition, readiness and vulnerabilities of this infrastructure have direct con-
sequences on human welfare, economic well being, and the advancement of the state
of the sciences. To ensure mission capacity, NOAA requests infrastructure funding
of $73.3 million in the following key categories: critical systems, construction, main-
tenance and repair, and NOAA program support.
Systems
The total request of $4.0 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) Computer Hardware and Software represents an increase of $0.5 million.
This continued investment will be used for information technology refreshment to
support the scientific and computational needs of the NMFS. Many of the observa-
tional data elements obtained from the new sensors, observers, Fisheries Research
Vessels (FRVs) and survey and census data collection programs in this budget sub-
mission will rely on the NMFS Information Technology infrastructure for all or part
of their life cycle. The cumulative effect of rising costs, the unmet need for adjust-
ments to base, and expanding requirements have created an erosion of base pro-
gram functionality. These funds will result in a continuous process of technology re-
freshment to keep pace with the increasing information flow created by the deploy-
ment of new sensors, platforms and data collection activities throughout NMFS ini-
tiatives.
Construction
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 for the Honolulu laboratory. This investment will
continue the replacement of the Honolulu Laboratory which consists of a main lab
building and two annex building. This funding will enable the project to proceed
with work needed to correct several deficiencies such as overcrowding, lack of lab-
oratories, inadequate or nonexistent handicap access, and hazardous materials.
The Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget request includes a total of $1.0 million
for the Coastal Services Center Wing. This investment will allow for construction
of a new wing adjacent to the main facility of the Coastal Services Center (CSC)
in Charleston, SC. This small expansion will add an estimated 6,000 square feet to
house office space, a storage area and a loading dock. The funding will also allow

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
12
for a partial demolition of CSCs obsolete and deteriorating structures. The demoli-
tion would eradicate some, but not all, of the structures that pose threats to CSCs
inhabited buildings. Additional needs for security enhancements and other expan-
sion remain under consideration in the comprehensive facilities plan being com-
pleted in Fiscal Year 2001.
Maintenance
The total request of $4.4 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service Facili-
ties Operations and Maintenance represents an increase of $0.4 million above the
Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will be used to cover in-
creased operation and maintenance costs of two key NMFS facilities, the new Santa
Cruz, California Laboratory, and the Kodiak, Alaska Laboratory.
NOAAs request of $3.6 million for Facilities Maintenance, Repairs and Safety
represents an increase of $1.7 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This continued investment will allow for remediation of NOAAs deteriorating facili-
ties. NOAAs capital assets, totaling 496 installations spread across all 50 states are
valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The majority of these facilities are
over 30 years old, and 29 percent are over 40 years in age. To date, renovations
have been relatively few, and maintenance has been deferred. NOAA has already
identified over $50 million in maintenance and repair projects, and this continues
to grow as a comprehensive facility assessment unfolds. Major systems in many fa-
cilities are in imminent danger of failure, or are well past their useful lives. The
requested funds will help address these facilities maintenance, repair and safety
needs.
Funding in the amount of $1.0 million is requested for NOAAs Beaufort Labora-
tory. This investment will allow for repairs at NOAAs Beaufort, NC Laboratory.
The funds will be used to address health and safety issues, primarily the installa-
tion of a sanitary sewage connection and electrical repairs. The Beaufort Laboratory
is the Nations second oldest marine research center a national treasure and is collo-
cated with the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve.
NOAAs request of $1.8 million for the GORDON GUNTER will allow for the up-
grade of the vessel to meet modern safety standards and to provide a more capable
platform to support fisheries research, stock assessment and other missions such as
submersible operations. The upgrade will include modifications to an engine-room
bulkhead that will enable the ship to meet modern safety standards for one-com-
partment damage stability, allowing a compartment to be fully flooded and the ship
to remain afloat with stability. This funding also would provide positioning and in-
strumentation upgrades. The GORDON GUNTER, homeported in Pascagoula, MS,
is a former Navy TAGOS vessel which has been converted and currently serves in
the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the Southeast Atlantic Ocean.
Included in NOAAs Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget request is $4.0 million
for the ALBATROSS IV. This investment will allow for repairs and the extension
of the ships useful life until a new Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV) can be con-
structed for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). In order to calibrate
the new vessel with the ALBATROSS IV, the ALBATROSS IV must be upgraded
and its service extended until a new vessel is completed. This calibration-overlap
protects the integrity of long-term surveys.
Additional funding has also been requested for the FAIRWEATHER. This invest-
ment is identified under the Marine Transportation System crosscut.
Coastal Conservation Activities
Over the past several years NOAA has proposed, through various initiatives and
programs, funding to address some of the most serious challenges facing the U.S.
coasts and oceans. Through those programs NOAA has made significant progress in
addressing a number of critical environmental issues. The Coastal Conservation Ac-
tivities Initiative will continue to build on the progress made to preserve the Na-
tions coasts and oceans.
In the Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget, NOAA requests $284.4 million to con-
tinue environmental programs that are critical to ensuring the continued preserva-
tion of our Nations coastal and ocean resources. The Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Re-
quest includes resources to enhance our ability to effectively manage the National
Marine Sanctuaries, enhance habitat protection through the National Estuarine Re-
search Reserve System and strengthen and improve Marine Protected Area (MPA)
programs and their conservation goals. These funds will be leveraged through im-
proved Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial coordination and collaboration to
fill shared information, technical and operational needs. Also included are additional
resources to increase Coastal Zone Management grants to states to enable coastal
states to address such issues of national importance as the impact of coastal storms,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
13
declining water quality, shortage of public shoreline access, loss of wetlands, deterio-
rating waterfronts, and the challenge of balancing economic and environmental de-
mands in the coastal zone. With the funds requested in Fiscal Year 2002 NOAA will
also continue to implement recommendations of the Coral Reef Task Force and en-
hance the recovery of threatened and endangered coastal salmon. The programs
that comprise the Coastal Conservation Activities cross-cut are highlighted below.
Coral Reef Activities
The total request of $27.7 million for Coral Reef Activities represents an increase
of $0.7 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment
will allow for NOAAs support for coral reef activities across the Nation. Funding
will enable NOAA to continue implementing priorities of the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force and recommendations included in the Americas Ocean Future Report. Work-
ing with state, territorial, and local partners, this level of funding will support re-
search, monitoring, and local level projects to reduce human impacts and increase
sustainable use of Americas valuable coral reefs.
Coastal Zone Management Program
The total request of $75.4 million for the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Pro-
gram represents an increase of $12.2 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted
level. This includes an increase of $8.6 million for CZM grants, a technical change
in the transfer from the CZM Fund, and an increase of $0.4 million for Program
Administration. In addition, $10.0 million is requested for Nonpoint Pollution Imple-
mentation Grants, a separate but integral program, which will be discussed later.
The total request of $69.0 million for CZM Grants represents an increase of $8.6
million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment will
allow NOAA to provide direct grants to coastal states for implementing and improv-
ing their approved coastal management programs. Currently 33 of the 35 eligible
coastal states have an approved coastal management program, with approval of the
34th state program, Indiana, expected in Fiscal Year 2002. Combined, these pro-
grams serve to manage and protect 99.9 percent of the Nations shoreline to the ben-
efit of the environment and the economy. The requested investment would provide
resources for coastal states to more fully implement their coastal management
plans. Specifically, NOAA provides grants to coastal states and territories to address
issues of national importance such as the impact of coastal storms and flooding, de-
clining water quality, shortage of public access to the shoreline, loss of wetlands,
deteriorating waterfronts and harbors, and the challenge of balancing economic and
environmental demands in increasingly competitive ports.
In order to streamline CZM administrative processes, NOAA proposes to consoli-
date all funding for CZM Program Administration under ORF. Doing so requires re-
placement of the $3.2 million that had been transferred from the CZM Fund (a non
ORF account) in prior years. In Fiscal Year 2002, the CZM Fund is proposed as a
general offset to CZM Act activities.
The total request of $6.4 million for the CZM Program Administration represents
an increase of $0.4 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued
investment will support NOAAs national program administration responsibilities
under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which continues to grow. This re-
quest will assist NOAAs ability to bring together representatives from state, Fed-
eral, and tribal governments and the private sector, to address issues such as coast-
al hazards, habitat and polluted runoff. It will allow NOAA to address the increas-
ing requests of the states (33 in the program, one state program in development)
for support and technical assistance. This level of funding will also enable NOAA
to maintain national support for the 25 National Estuarine Research Reserves.
Nonpoint Pollution Implementation Grants
NOAA requests a total of $10.0 million for Nonpoint Pollution Implementation
Grants. This investment will provide states with resources to reduce nonpoint pollu-
tion, the greatest single threat to coastal water quality. Coastal waters are increas-
ingly impacted by polluted runoff. Symptoms include the impacts of Pfiesteria in
coastal waters of the eastern seaboard, nutrient over-enrichment in the Gulf of Mex-
ico, the loss of salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest and local closures of shell-
fish beds and beaches throughout the country. NOAA will provide grants to states
with approved plans to address the causes of these and other symptoms of the deg-
radation of our coastal water quality.
National Estuarine Research Reserves
The total request of $26.3 million for the National Estuarine Research Reserves
(NERRS) represents a decrease of $29.3 million below the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted
level. This funding level supports an increase in operations of $1.7 million for a total

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
14
of $16.4 million in the Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) Account, and a de-
crease in one-time construction items of $24.5 million, for a total request of $9.9 mil-
lion in the PAC Account. With regard to the increase for NERRS operations, these
funds will improve the ability of NOAA and its state partners to understand, man-
age, and protect these special estuarine habitats and biodiversity. The NERRS is
a network of protected areas established to improve the health of the Nations estu-
aries and coastal habitats through long-term research, protection, and education
and to address such issues as water quality, loss and degradation of habitat, and
loss of species biodiversity. The increase will significantly enhance the monitoring
and technical training programs at the 25 designated reserves, and ultimately lead
to healthier estuaries, coastal water quality, and fisheries.
Of particular interest is the NERRS SystemWide Monitoring Program (SWMP).
The SWMP is a national monitoring system that will integrate water quality, and
biological and land-cover change elements, making the information available to sci-
entists and managers. The 25 existing reserves will expand their participation in
SWMP by increasing spatial coverage of water quality stations, and by monitoring
additional biological indicators. Reserve staff will also improve estuarine resource
management by providing enhanced technical training for planners, policy-makers,
and other state and local coastal decision-makers on water quality, habitat, invasive
species, and sustainable ecosystem issues. Funding of $9.9 million for infrastructure
investments in the Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) account in-
cludes resources to complement these activities by providing resources for research,
education, and visitor facilities at multiple reserve sites across the Nation. The
NERR system uses a competitive priority -setting process each year to fund the best
projects from the long list of eligible proposals. At some sites, land acquisition from
willing sellers may be a high priority to enhance the protection of key resources.
At other sites, facilities and related structures, such as interpretive centers, labora-
tories, boardwalks, and boat docks may be the best use of funds to enhance the out-
reach, education, and research programs within the NERRS.
National Marine Sanctuaries
The total request of $52.0 million for the National Marine Sanctuaries represents
an increase of $16.6 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This increase
of $16.6 million is comprised of $3.6 million for operations (for a total ORF request
of $36.0 million), and an increase of $13.0 million for new construction (for a total
PAC request of $16.0 million). With regard to National Marine Sanctuaries oper-
ations, this continued investment will provide funding to upgrade the operating and
technical capacity in the thirteen national marine sanctuaries. The results will im-
prove protection of important sanctuary resources, including coral reefs, endangered
marine mammals, sensitive habitats, and significant cultural resources. In addition
to supporting the operations, this investment will provide for additional site charac-
terization, additional enforcement capabilities, public education, and the implemen-
tation of key management changes. Changes are expected in a wide range of activi-
ties, including drafting and amending regulations, establishing new partnerships,
expansion of outreach and education efforts, and additional research, monitoring
and restoration.
The Congress has called for sufficient resources for operational staff, facilities and
equipment, effective implementation of management plans, enforcement, and par-
ticularly for site characterization including cultural resources and inventory of exist-
ing natural resources. Elements that must be compiled for cultural and natural re-
source inventories include location of shipwrecks, data on marine mammals, fish,
shellfish and sea birds, habitat types, and physical characteristics, such as bottom
typography, water quality, and water temperature. The goal is to gather enough
characterization information at each site to be able to effectively manage the re-
sources. New funding will support these efforts and the Sustainable Seas Expedi-
tions. This Fiscal Year 2002 Budget responds to Congressional direction and the re-
cently passed National Marine Sanctuary Amendments Act.
With regard to the increase of $13.0 million for Marine Sanctuaries construction
in the PAC Account, NOAA will continue to implement the detailed, comprehensive
facilities plan developed in Fiscal Year 2000 in order to respond to the growing pub-
lic interest in the ocean environment and the Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA will
work in partnership with other Federal agencies and private institutions such as
museums, aquaria, and foundations. NOAA will establish or upgrade facilities to en-
sure access to sanctuary resources and allow public appreciation of the unique ma-
rine habitats in those sanctuaries. These facilities provide important outreach and
education functions for these special places, since many visitors are unable to visit
the actual sanctuary sites which, in several cases, are many miles offshore or

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
15
require individuals to be certified scuba divers in order to view firsthand these na-
tional treasures.
Within these funds, an estimated $6.5 million is targeted for the Dr. Nancy Foster
Florida Keys Environmental Center to complete renovation and construction at this
former Navy installation and properly support the multi-agency partnership and the
Centers mandates to promote environmental education, protection, marine safety
and rescue, and coastal stewardship. This center, which was dedicated last year,
stands as a tribute to the late Dr. Nancy Foster, NOAAs Assistant Administrator
for the National Ocean Service. One of the two buildings will host a state-of-the-
art multi-agency (NOAA, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service) visitor cen-
ter. The other building will become the operations center for the Florida Keys Na-
tional Marine Sanctuary and host office space; laboratory space; a diving locker; a
maintenance area for mooring buoys, boats and vehicles; and dock space. The new
facility will also provide consolidation of office space and boat docks that are cur-
rently scattered across multiple leased facilities in the Key West area.
Marine Protected Areas
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million for Marine Protected Areas. This invest-
ment will strengthen and improve agency-wide Marine Protected Area (MPA) pro-
grams and their conservation goals. This effort supports NOAAs responsibilities for
fulfilling the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, National Estuarine Research
Reserve Program, Coastal Zone Management Program, and coral reefs. This funding
will foster collaboration with the Department of the Interior and other Federal agen-
cies, state, local, tribal and territorial governments as well as non-governmental
partners. Efforts will focus on developing a supporting framework for effective com-
munication and collaboration among MPA programs by creating a national system
of marine protected areas including NMS, NERRS, and other Federal, state, and
tribal marine protected areas. These funds will also support preparation of the first
comprehensive inventory and assessment of the existing system of U.S. MPAs. The
NOAA MPA Program will consist of a Marine Protected Areas Center, comprised of
a small core staff in Washington, DC and two regional Institutes of Excellence.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
The total request of $90.0 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
represents an increase of $0.2 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This continued investment will allow the states and tribes to continue support for
habitat restoration and protection, research and enhancement, monitoring and eval-
uation, and salmon recovery planning and implementation efforts. Funding will be
used to enhance Pacific coastal salmon recovery and for the purpose of helping share
the costs of state, tribal and local conservation initiatives. Programs funded within
this account will assist in the conservation of Pacific salmon runs, some of which
are at risk of extinction in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.
Funds provided to these states will have at least a 25 percent matching require-
ment. This request responds to current and proposed listings of coastal salmon and
steelhead runs under the Endangered Species Act by forming lasting partnerships
with states, local and tribal governments and the public for saving Pacific salmon
and their important habitats.
Climate Services
From the storms of next week to the drought of next season to the potential
human-induced climate change over the coming century, issues of climate variability
and change will be continue to be a major issue for the Nation. Whether responding
to the ongoing drought in the Pacific Northwest and its effect on power generation
and endangered salmon, or in determining how much atmospheric carbon dioxide
is taken up by the North American biosphere, these questions influence users from
the Western water manager to the shapers of national policy. The challenge is to
extend the research successes, maintain the observational backbone, and improve
the capability to provide useful information services to our customers. Improved cli-
mate predictions will enable resource managers in climate sensitive sectors such as
agriculture, water management, and energy supply to alter strategies and reduce
economic vulnerability. Building on the understanding of the Earths climate system
that has resulted from the Nations strong scientific research and numerical mod-
eling programs, this Climate Observations and Services Program will begin the
transition of research data, observing systems and understanding from experiments
to applications, and from basic science to practical products.
NOAA maintains a balanced program of focused research, large-scale observa-
tional programs, modeling on seasonal-centennial time scales, and data manage-
ment. In addition to its responsibilities in weather prediction, NOAA has pioneered
in the research and operational prediction of climate variability associated with the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
16
El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). With agency and international partners,
NOAA has been a leader in the assessments of climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion, and the global carbon cycle. NOAA scientists have been leaders inter-
nationally in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It maintains
national coordination through participation in the U.S. Global Change Research
Program.
The agency-wide Climate Observations and Services activity represents a partner-
ship that allows NOAA to facilitate the transition of research observing and data
systems and knowledge into operational systems and products. During recent years,
there has been a growing demand from emergency managers, the private sector, the
research community, decision-makers in the United States and international gov-
ernmental agencies and the general public to provide timely data and information
about climate variability, climate change and trends in extreme weather events. The
economic and social need for continuous, reliable climate data and longer-range cli-
mate forecasts has been clearly demonstrated. NOAAs Climate Observations and
Services Initiative responds to these needs. The following efforts will be supported
by this initiative:
Continuing Climate Services
NOAAs request for Ocean Observations in Fiscal Year 2002 is $5.0 million.
NOAA maintains the sustained global observing and data stewardship system nec-
essary for climate research and forecasting as well as the long-term monitoring sys-
tem necessary for climate change detection and attribution. The observation net-
work is based on a set of core observations (e.g., temperature, surface wind stress,
salinity, sea level, carbon dioxide), consisting of both in-situ and remotely sensed
measurements, that have been identified in NOAA and other national and inter-
national reports as needed to satisfy research and operational climate requirements.
Ocean System for Improved Climate Services
NOAA requests a total of $7.3 million for the Ocean System for Improved Climate
Services. This investment will contribute to the global operational ocean-observing
system by enhancing its present components and establishing new components. Of
the $7.3 million requested, $3.2 million is required to support the U.S. commitment
to deploy and maintain 1000 ARGO profiling floats in the proposed global array of
3,000 floats. This commitment requires a deployment of 280 ARGO floats per year.
The remainder of this request, $4.1 million, supports other observational compo-
nents including Arctic Ocean fluxes, ocean reference stations, oceanic carbon, and
augmentation of the volunteer observing ship (VOS) instrumentation. Finally, in-
vestments are to be made for data management and assimilation. Based on a firm
scientific foundation, this ocean observing system is closely coupled with other U.S.
and international observing efforts, and will greatly improve the data available for
understanding climate variation.
Modernization of NOAA Fisheries
The Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget Request for the National Marine Fish-
eries Service (NMFS), referred to as NOAA Fisheries, follows Congressionally en-
acted levels in Fiscal Year 2001 and invests in core programs needed for NOAA to
meet its mission to manage fisheries, rebuild stocks, and protect endangered species
such as sea turtles and whales. NOAA Fisheries modernization funds will be allo-
cated within NMFS to ensure that existing statutory and regulatory requirements
are met for fisheries and protected species management programs (including the
MagnusonStevens Act, National Environmental Protection Act, Endangered Spe-
cies Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other statutory requirements). In Fis-
cal Year 2002, there are sufficient funds for NMFS to meet its statutory and regu-
latory requirements.
This budget request builds upon last years effort to begin the modernization of
NOAA Fisheries. The Modernization of NOAA Fisheries Initiative encompasses a
long-term commitment to improve the NMFS structure, processes, and business ap-
proaches to meet its mission of sustaining the Nations living marine resources and
their habitat. This initiative focuses on improving NMFS science, management, and
enforcement programs and beginning to rebuild its aging infrastructure. These im-
provements will result in measurable progress in the biological and economic sus-
tainability of fisheries and protected resources. In order to ensure the viability of
these modernization efforts, the Fiscal Year 2002 Presidents Budget Request in-
cludes the following program investments:
Science
A total of $1.9 million is requested for research and monitoring activities for the
South Florida ecosystem, an increase of $0.6 million over the Fiscal Year 2001

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
17
Enacted level.As a result of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction projects
within the Florida Everglades, NMFS must monitor the impact of inland restoration
efforts and the changing freshwater inflow on Florida Bay habitats, nutrient flow,
hydrodynamics, and ultimately on measurable ecosystem productivity and health.
The total request of $15.0 million for Expanding Annual Stock Assessments rep-
resents an increase of $13.3 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This
continued investment will provide for additional scientific survey data collection to
improve NMFS ability to make accurate, timely stock predictions. Funding at this
level would add 829 chartered ship days toward the deficit of 2,564 days identified
in the NMFS Stock Assessments Improvement Plan as needed for adequate stock
assessment coverage. Included in this increase is $1.0 million to enhance the assess-
ment of marine mammal population status and trends as required by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
A total request of $2.0 million for fisheries oceanography represents a $2.0 million
increase above the Fiscal Year 2001 level. This request is comprised of two in-
creases, $1.5 million for NMFS and $0.5 million for fisheries oceanography within
the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS). The
$1.5 million increase will enable NMFS to assess how long-term environmental fac-
tors affect fish stocks. By better identifying the potential environmental causes of
fish population fluctuations, NMFS will be able to improve its stock predictions and
resultant management actions. The $0.5 million increase will enable NESDIS to ex-
plore using Synthetic Aperture Radar technology and data in fishery resources mon-
itoring. This investment would build on applications demonstrated in October 1999
using RADARSAT1 imagery in Alaska, and would result in radar data and prod-
ucts useful in fisheries enforcement, NMFS laboratories and for other agencies such
as the Coast Guard.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to promote environmentally sound marine
aquaculture. NOAA will improve the aquaculture regulatory framework by devel-
oping and implementing of a code of conduct for responsible aquaculture. NOAA will
also address the important environmental aspects of aquaculture in the non-indige-
nous species area, especially for shrimp viruses.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million for Pacific highly migratory species re-
search. This request would fund growing and critical research needs as a new Fish-
ery Management Plan for these species is implemented. Activities include: con-
ducting stock assessments and biological studies for four major tuna species and
three species of sharks, conducting research to evaluate the extent of bycatch and
effectiveness of mitigation measures in purse seine fishing using fish aggregating
devices, and developing and implementing assessment methodologies tailored for
highly migratory species.
A total request of $6.0 million for Cooperative Research represents an increase of
$0.5 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This request will expand coop-
erative research activities in the Southeast and will involve fishermen in designing
and conducting research programs, utilizing their expertise and insights in resource
survey design and interpretation. By working together to design and implement
data collection programs, these partnerships between NMFS and the industry sig-
nificantly strengthen fisheries research. This Southeast cooperative research effort
compliments similar efforts, including Northeast Cooperative Research funded at
$5.0 million, cooperative research coordinated by the Northeast Consortium funded
at $5.0 million and, and National Cooperative Research efforts, funded at $3.0 mil-
lion.
A total request of $4.4 million for expanding economic and statistics research rep-
resents a $1.4 million increase over the Fiscal Year 2001 level. This request is need-
ed to conduct economic and social assessments of management alternatives by im-
proving NMFS economic and social science staff capability, and initiation of data
and applied research programs. This funding will enable NMFS to better evaluate
and predict the economic and community impacts of potential management actions,
and satisfy statutory, regulatory and Executive Order requirements for assessing
the benefits and costs of fisheries management and protected species management
actions
NOAA requests a total of $8.0 million for the National Fisheries Information Sys-
tem. This investment will begin the implementation of a National Fisheries Infor-
mation System to improve the quality, timeliness, coverage and access to data col-
lected by state and Federal entities for use in the science and management of fish-
eries. This system will be developed in cooperation with the fishing industry, states,
interstate fisheries commissions, and other stakeholders as outlined under section
401 of the MagnusonStevens Act. The funding provided to the Atlantic States Ma-
rine Fisheries Commission for regional implementation activities in Fiscal Year
2001 is included in addition to this funding. The proposed system would improve

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
18
the accuracy and effectiveness of existing data collection programs by establishing
common data collection, information technology, and quality standards for regional
programs, and integrating the results into unified Web-enabled information system.
The proposal will also fill critical information gaps through initiation of new data
collection programs that will subsequently improve living marine resource policy de-
cisions by reducing data uncertainties.
NOAA requests a total of $1.0 million to reduce fishery impacts on essential fish
habitat. This request funds research that will focus on the effects of specific fishing
activities on essential fish habitat, comparing those impacts with other sources of
habitat degradation, monitoring habitat recovery in areas where fishing has been
curtailed, and developing management strategies to ensure sustainable harvesting
practices.
NOAA requests $4.0 million for additional Fishery Observers - Improving Data
Collection. This investment will provide for increased observer coverage to minimum
levels around the country as required by regulation or to optimal levels as rec-
ommended by fisheries scientists for statistical validity, and initiates coverage in
fisheries that were previously not observed. Observers are increasingly essential to
managing fisheries and marine mammal stocks. To improve the quality of data col-
lected by observers and to provide a more sound base for fishery management deci-
sions, the plan includes resources to provide better coordination and consistency of
NMFS observer program policies and procedures. It also provides for the develop-
ment of technological enhancements to make the future observer program less costly
and more efficient. A total request of $10.0 million for Fisheries Habitat Restoration
represents an increase of $2.0 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 level. These funds
will expand NMFS involvement in community- based restoration projects. This high-
ly successful national effort encourages partnerships with groups outside NOAA and
has regularly leveraged appropriated funds by factors of five to six, and by as much
as ten to one.Presently, NOAA receives many more high-quality habitat restoration
proposals than it has funds to support. The requested funds would enhance national
restoration efforts to meet this enthusiastic demand.
NOAA requests a total of $0.3 million for Habitat Characterization. This invest-
ment will allow NESDIS to develop maps of fishery habitat distributions in space
and time, and to answer important questions with such maps. A computer mapping
capability will be created that will allow spatial/statistical delineations (stratifica-
tion) of the landscape. Such maps can represent inferred ecosystem potentials that
are critical in monitoring, assessment, and management. The system will allow
rapid iteration of the mapping process, thus affording opportunities to test, modify,
and document model criteria, statistical mapping technique, and data selection. In
this manner, habitat maps can be adaptively maintained.
Management
NOAA requests a total of $1.5 million to refine essential fish habitat designa-
tions.This request funds programs to collect critical scientific data needed to identify
essential fish habitat more precisely for managed species, enhancing the effective-
ness of fishery management actions, and filling data gaps that can result in litiga-
tion.
NOAA requests a total of $3.5 million for the Northeast Fisheries Management
program. This investment will enable NMFS to continue rebuilding overfished and
overcapitalized Northeast fisheries including groundfish and scallops by reducing
the amount of fish takes by fishermen, thus giving the fish stocks time to recover.
Funding will also be used, in part, to implement new and innovative cooperative re-
search efforts in the Region.
The total request of $15.6 million for Regional Councils represents an increase of
$2.5 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment
will support all eight Regional Councils increased workload from new programs and
regulations as a result of implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments
to the MagnusonStevens Act. The Regional Councils are integral partners with
NOAA in the management of the Nations fisheries. NOAA is the Regional Fisheries
Councils only source of funding to carry out their mission.
The total request of $6.3 million for marine sea turtle activities represents an in-
crease of $3.0 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This investment will
allow NOAA to recover Atlantic and Pacific marine sea turtle stocks threatened by
domestic and international fisheries interactions as well as inadequate conservation
of marine turtles on nesting beaches.
The total request of $4.5 million for dolphin conservation and recovery represents
an increase of $1.0 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This investment
will allow NOAA to expand current activities in dolphin stock identification and as-
sessment, to reduce mortality incidental to commercial fishing activities, and to

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
19
initiate efforts to use bottlenose dolphins as an indicator of the health of the eco-
systems they occupy.
The total request of $3.5 million for Atlantic salmon represents and increase of
$1.5 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This investment will allow
NOAA to conserve and restore healthy populations of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf
of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and their habitats. NOAA will use this
investment to expand the monitoring of Atlantic salmon population dynamics, ex-
pand habitat assessment and conservation, enhance scientific knowledge related to
human resource usage and development activities that are affecting species sur-
vival, and strengthen evaluations to minimize risk through coordinated planning,
innovative partnering, and on-site involvement in restoration, conservation, and pro-
tection activities.
The total request of $7.0 million for Northern Right Whales represents an in-
crease of $2.0 million over the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This investment will
allow NOAA to expand current Northern Right Whale population and health assess-
ments and recovery efforts in the North Atlantic and in the North Pacific.
Enforcement
The total request of $47.3 million for Enforcement Activities represents an in-
crease of $10.0 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued in-
vestment will allow NOAA to modernize its fisheries and protected species enforce-
ment programs. Improved enforcement is essential to ensuring that fisheries regula-
tions are effective and yield conservation benefits for the industry and the public.
Of the total funding amount, $7.4 million (of which $6.1 million is new funding) is
included for additional support, continued modernization and expansion of the ves-
sel management system (VMS) program. The VMS national program is capable of
accommodating nearly 10,000 vessels throughout a number of different fisheries.
The request also includes $39.9 million (of which $3.9 million is new funding) to ex-
pand and modernize base enforcement programs. These programs include Alaska
and west coast groundfish enforcement, protected species enforcement, state and
local partnerships, specialized MagnusonStevens Act investigatory functions, com-
munity oriented policing and problem- solving, and swordfish/Patagonian toothfish
import investigations.
Modernization of the Marine Transportation System (MTS)
Since our Nations founding, maritime trade has been vital to economic prosperity.
NOAAs lineage dates back to 1807 when President Thomas Jefferson called for
charting the coasts and harbors. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade
moves by sea. In 1998, about 2.4 billion tons of cargo moved on our waterways and
through our ports. U.S./foreign waterborne commerce grew about 23 percent from
1993 to 1997about 4.6 percent per year. Trade is projected to at least double by
2020. Vessels have also grown dramatically; over the last 50 years, the length,
width, and draft of commercial vessels has doubled, pushing the limits of many
ports and posing significant safety concerns. Ensuring safe and efficient port oper-
ations is vital to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. port industry and ex-
ports. Growth in ferry, cruise line, and recreational boating is contributing to in-
creased congestion on our waterways.Nearly half of all goods in marine commerce
are petroleum products or other hazardous materials. One key to reducing risk is
to invest in the national information infrastructure that supports the safe and effi-
cient movement of goods and people.
In 1998, Congress directed Federal agencies to produce an assessment of the U.S.
Marine Transportation System (MTS) and a plan for modernizing government navi-
gation services. This Fiscal Year 2002 request is NOAAs effort to direct a set of
targeted investments to expand and capitalize on its existing programs in Mapping
and Charting, Survey Backlog, Geodesy, Tide and Current Data, Response and Res-
toration, and Fleet Replacement to further the goals of this ongoing effort. This is
a first step toward developing a 21st century transportation system that can address
the major issues faced by the country in maritime safety, security, infrastructure,
the environment, and competitiveness.
NOAA maintains the Nations suite of nautical charts, the coastal water level ob-
servations system, and the geodetic positioning reference system needed to ensure
safe navigation. NOAA also maintains the scientific expertise to respond to haz-
ardous releases when they occur. NOAA charts are developed from NOAAs hydro-
graphic and shoreline surveys, tide and current measurements, and national geo-
detic/geographic positioning data, as well as information from other sources. Dem-
onstration projects have shown that these programs can provide the accurate data
necessary for determining precise under-keel and overhead/bridge clearances and
support near zero visibility docking, allowing commercial vessels to more safely

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
20
navigate and efficiently load and move cargo in and out of depth-limited harbors.
NOAAs integrated suite of surveying, charting, water level, and positioning services
is capable of increasing the efficient movement of goods while significantly reducing
the risk of marine accidents and resulting environmental damage. When accidents
do occur, NOAA can provide the necessary support to ensure a scientifically-based
response and restoration of damaged coastal resources. Economic benefits include
reducing vessel fuel consumption and port pollution, supporting just-in-time delivery
of goods, enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. exports, and restoration of impor-
tant coastal resources that support tourism, fishing, and other ocean- and coastal-
dependent industries. Specific program increases are described in detail below.
NOAA requests an increase of $3.6 million for Electronic Navigational Charts
(ENCs). This continued investment will allow for the ongoing production and main-
tenance of ENCs and the ability to enhance and expand the full suite of ENCs to
a total of 200 from the 70 in existence at the end of Fiscal Year 2000. ENCs provide
a more complete picture of coastal waterways. NOAA requests an increase of $1.0
million for Shoreline Mapping. This investment will allow for a more accurate na-
tional shoreline. An increased emphasis on shoreline mapping is required to keep
pace with the growing stress on our Nations marine transportation system and to
assist states and coastal managers.
NOAA requests an increase of $0.5 million for the National Spatial Reference Sys-
tem (NSRS). This investment will increase the Nations access to the Continuously
Operating Reference Stations (CORS), a set of Global Positioning System (GPS) sta-
tions, and the mainstay of the NSRS. This investment will expand the number of
National CORS, expand the Federal Base and Cooperative Base Network stations
connected to the national standard for vertical heights, which are used for all appli-
cations that require surveying. These activities will provide better access to accurate
and consistent height data for a wide-range of economic pursuits.
NOAA requests a total of $0.5 million to Implement Forecast Models. This invest-
ment will enhance tides and tidal current services to the user by obtaining new cur-
rent meter measurements at locations critical to the navigation community and by
accelerating the development of nowcast/forecast products for users of oceanographic
data.
NOAA requests a total of $3.0 million for Coastal Storms. This investment will
build upon existing NOAA environmental monitoring and data management capa-
bilities and will enhance our efforts to provide Marine Transportation System users,
as well as coastal resource managers, with the data and tools needed to safely maxi-
mize commercial shipping, mitigate hazards, and sustain the environmental health
of coastal communities and resources when disasters strike. Initial efforts will focus
on a pilot project in Florida and include updating shallow water bathymetry, adding
sensors to National Water Level Observation Network stations, and developing a
hydrodynamic model for improved forecasting applications.
NOAA requests an increase of $2.0 million for Spill Response and Habitat Res-
toration. This investment will develop and distribute tools and guidance to assist
decision makers when releases of contaminants occur within the Marine Transpor-
tation System and other coastal environments. These funds will enable NOAA to
more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of spill response measures, leading to im-
proved response techniques as well as better methods of restoring injured resources.
The total request of $9.5 million for the FAIRWEATHER repair and activation
represents an increase of $2.7 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.
This continued investment will complete the refurbishment and reactivation of the
FAIRWEATHER and help reduce the survey backlog, a high marine transportation
priority. This project was directed by Congress in 2001 and makes efficient use of
this vessel which has been located at NOAAs Pacific Marine Center. With its home
port in Alaska, the FAIRWEATHER will provide a platform that will help reduce
the critical hydrographic survey backlog.
Other Key NOAA Programs
The total request of $14.0 million for Ocean Exploration represents an increase
of $10.0 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level.Despite covering 70 per-
cent of Earths surface, the oceans remain largely unexplored and unknown. Not
surprisingly, most of the oceans resources remain untapped. Our best scientists be-
lieve that fewer than 25 percent of the species that live in the oceans have ever been
identified. Even within Americas own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), less than
five percent of the ocean floor has been mapped in high resolution. In fact, prior
to Fiscal Year 2001, the United States did not even have a concentrated program
of ocean exploration. As a result, NOAA has pursued a course of ocean resource
management without adequate decision-making data and information being avail-
able to policy makers, regulators, and commercial users of the oceans resources.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
21
However, today we live in an age of technological innovation. There are many op-
portunities that simply were not available in earlier decades. We now can com-
pletely rethink how we might conduct exploration in Earths oceans. Developments
in sensors, telemetry, power sources, microcomputers, and materials science have
greatly improved our ability to go into and study the undersea frontier.
The benefits of such a program of exploration are potentially enormous. For exam-
ple, gas hydrates comprise more than 50 percent of all of our planets carbon and
potentially hold more than 1000 times the fuel in all other estimated reserves com-
bined! In addition, there are certain to be other benefits which currently are beyond
our ability even to conceive. With 95 percent of the underwater world still unknown
and unseen, what remains to be explored may hold clues to the origins of life on
earth, cures for human diseases, answers to how to achieve sustainable use of our
oceans, links to our maritime history, and information to protect the endangered
species of the sea.
We are stewards of our oceans resources. We need to explore and know more
about our oceans if we are to effectively manage them. We need to explore the
oceans in the same way that the U.S. has successfully explored space. We need to
determine what our marine resources are, their relative abundance, and the rates
at which they can be used and replenished. Accurate knowledge of the oceans is es-
sential for environmental, economic, and national security.
The Fiscal Year 2002 budget increase will enable NOAA to fund six major and
several minor interdisciplinary voyages of discovery that will map the physical, geo-
logical, biological, chemical, and archaeological aspects of parts of the U.S. EEZ.
NOAA will conduct missions of exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic
Bight, Northwest Hawaiian Islands, Northeast Pacific, California, and the Gulf of
Alaska. Education and outreach is a major component of NOAAs Ocean Exploration
Initiative. NOAA will carry-out this program relying on partnerships with univer-
sities, the private sector, and other agencies. NOAAs Ocean Exploration Initiative
will help us to fulfill our national strategic goals to Sustain Healthy Coasts, Recover
Protected Species, and Build Sustainable Fisheries.
Marine Environmental Research
The total request of $11.6 million for Marine Environmental Research represents
an increase of $1.8 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued
investment will support ongoing operations at OARs Atlantic Oceanographic Mete-
orological Laboratory (AOML) and the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
(PMEL). The requested funds will enable AOMLs Remote Sensing Division to reac-
tivate its field measurements that provide data for major community health-related
decisions in contaminant-release emergencies in Florida and elsewhere.Coral reef
monitoring activities are also supported. These funds will also enable PMELs Fish-
eries Oceanography program to continue ocean measurements planned for the Gulf
of Alaska and the Bering Sea. These funds are important to the study of the poten-
tial influences of climate changes on recent shifts in the species composition of these
ecosystems including declines in salmon and Steller sea lion populations.
NOAA requests a total of $2.0 million for the Estuary Restoration Act. This in-
vestment will allow for NOAA-wide activities mandated by the Estuary Restoration
Act of 2000. NOAA will work with other partners to implement a national estuary
habitat restoration strategy designed to ensure a comprehensive approach towards
habitat restoration projects. Healthy estuarine ecosystems provide a number of ben-
efits pertaining to wildlife habitat, commercial and recreational fisheries, water
quality, flood control, erosion, and outdoor recreation. NOAAs activities include the
development of scientifically sound monitoring protocols and standards for coastal
habitat restoration projects throughout the United States and its protectorates.
NOAA will develop restoration databases that provide quick and easy access to ac-
curate and up to date information regarding all projects funded under the Estuary
Restoration Act of 2000. This work will provide scientists and resource mangers
with information critical to successful estuary habitat restoration efforts.
The total request of $63.8 million for Marine Services represents an increase of
$1.9 million above the Fiscal Year 2001 Enacted level. This continued investment
will allow NOAA to operate its fleet of 15 vessels capable of safely collecting hydro-
graphic and coastal assessment data, conducting fishery independent scientific and
survey operations, and conducting sustained oceanographic and atmospheric data
collection in various marine environments and provides funds for outsourcing to
meet some data-collection requirements. The request includes an increase of $1.0
million to provide days-at-sea, primarily through UniversityNational Oceano-
graphic Laboratory System (UNOLS) and charter vessels, to support research in the
Gulf of Mexico concerning the interactions of the Mississippi River plume, nutrient
loading, and resulting effects of hypoxia on Gulf fisheries. These funds will also

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
22
maintain or increase day-at-sea levels supporting other NOAA programs, including
the science programs in NOS and the sanctuary program. The request also includes
an increase of $0.9 million which will be used to pay the increased costs for oper-
ating the ADVENTUROUS and to add days-at-sea on fisheries research vessels.
The ADVENTUROUS, which will replace the TOWNSEND CROMWELL, is a larger
and more capable vessel that will carry more scientists and complete more research
on a daily basis.
NOAAs Budget and Financial Management
NOAA requests a total of $19.8 million for the Commerce Administrative Manage-
ment System (CAMS). This investment will allow for the full benefit and value of
CAMS to be realized in NOAA.CAMS is in the final stages of completion, expected
in Fiscal Year 2003, and adequate funding will ensure that CAMS is deployed in
a timely manner, allowing all modules to progress toward completion. Once fully de-
ployed, CAMS will contribute in significant ways to maintaining a clean NOAA fi-
nancial audit through systematic controls rather than through labor-intensive man-
ual efforts. It will provide managers with on-line, real-time, and accurate financial
information in support of their programmatic missions, and will be legally compli-
ant. Requested funding for CAMS is vital to preserve NOAAs ability to have a satis-
factory financial accounts system and allow NOAA and DOC to meet statutory obli-
gations under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and the Chief
Financial Officer Act (CFO Act).
For the Fiscal Year 2000, NOAA received an unqualified opinion on NOAA finan-
cial statements from an independent auditor. The Fiscal Year 2000 audit represents
the second consecutive year NOAA has received a clean audit and demonstrates the
intensive efforts made by NOAA to improve financial management. NOAA continues
to place a high priority on improving fiscal and financial management in order to
increase accountability and efficiency.
Over the past several years, NOAA has been working to respond to Congressional
concerns stemming from the NOAA budget structure. The Congressional Appropria-
tion Committees have challenged NOAA to make recommendations to simplify its
budget structure. NOAA has taken several actions that address the restructuring
of its budget and financial management processes. The outcome of these actions is
already apparent and demonstrated in its improved budgetary communications as
well as in the improved accuracy of its documentation (e.g., sustaining a clean audit
and improved timeliness in the distribution of funds). NOAA continues to work to-
ward meeting the challenges of restructuring the NOAA budget and is excited about
the improved efficiency a new budget structure will bring.
As evidenced by NOAAs improving financial and budgetary management, NOAA
is doing its part to exercise fiscal responsibility as stewards of the Nations trust
as well as Americas coastal and ocean resources. And, in the same way that NOAA
is responsible for assessing the Nations climate, we are responsible for assessing
our management capabilities. It is within this broader management context that
NOAA continues looking for opportunities to improve. NOAAs Fiscal Year 2002
Budget Request includes measures which track results to the level of public invest-
ment. NOAA will continue to leverage its programs and investments by developing
those associations that most efficiently and economically leverage resources and tal-
ent, and that most effectively provide the means for successfully meeting mission
requirements.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Scott.


I think, with the indulgence of Mr. Jones, since we do have a
couple of votes at 10 oclock and Scott has to leave, we will do some
questions, Scott, for the next few minutes.
Mr. JONES. Fine. Absolutely.
Mr. GILCHREST. Scott, I think we can hold you a little after 10,
because everybody is going to leave at 10, so your next hearing will
be disrupted as well, if that is all right.
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. That way members can ask those questions.
Mr. GUDES. Sir, I follow Secretary Evans. I will stay.
Mr. GILCHREST. What was that?
Mr. GUDES. I need to back up Secretary Evans at the next hear-
ing, and, as you point out, that hearing will be

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
23

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. I think by the time they can get started
I dont think they can get started.
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.
A couple of quick items: Is there any proposal being floated
around in NOAA about an expansion of any particular marine
sanctuary? Or are there any areas around the Exclusive Economic
Zones that you might want to expand or add a new Marine Pro-
tected Area?
Mr. GUDES. First of all, in terms of sanctuaries, I think all of the
sanctuaries deal with this issue as part of their just being sanc-
tuaries, whether or not there is an expansion of boundaries.
I know, for example, to answer your question, at the Channel Is-
lands Marine Sanctuary in California, there is an ongoing proposal
on what their boundaries should be, how far should they expand
beyond current boundaries, and should they have areas that ex-
clude, for example, ongoing oil and gas exploration in that area.
I think you know, Mr. Chairman, I think it was last week, the
State of Florida and Governor Bushs Cabinet supported the cre-
ation of an MPA, if you will, for the Tortugas Ecological Reserve
as part of the Florida Keys sanctuary.
I think, actually, this is an issue that is part of the ongoing re-
view and understanding of the Marine Sanctuary Program. But I
do think that, in each case, where these issues are successful, it is
because of the local people.
Mr. GILCHREST. Same with a wildlife refuge. If it is managed ap-
propriately by the people in the region, I think there is more of a
chance of expansion.
Mr. GUDES. Our local managers, like Billy Causey in the Keys,
work very hard with the local community. They have advisory com-
mittees that include the fisherman, include the divers, include the
people who work with the resources. And it is all from a consensus-
based approach, and it is one of the things that is a very important
part of these.
Mr. GILCHREST. Another question: Is there enough money in
NOAA to come up with a pretty clear analysis of the Navys use
of sonar and its impact on whales under certain circumstances? I
understand it is an ongoing research study with the Navy. Is there
anytime soon that we can see some type of analysis or a further
conclusion to that?
Mr. GUDES. Both in general, Mr. Chairman, sound in the sea and
its effects on marine mammals is, of course, a big issue. NOAA
fisheries really plays the lead role in that.
There is a specific issue now out for public comment, having to
do with a specific proposal by the Navy for a low-frequency sonar
called the LFA SURTASS, I believe the name is, where we are in-
volved in going out to the public and holding public hearings; I
probably shouldnt comment on that specific one.
But sound in the sea and sonar and its impact on marine mam-
mals, this is something also that I think we work closely with the
Navy on, in the last year especially, to work together in terms of
issues. And the Navy takes a number of measures, for example, in
terms of military uses of sonar, to ensure that there is not a nega-
tive impact on marine mammals.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
24

[NOAAs response follows:]

NOAANAVY LOW FREQUENCY ACTIVE STUDY

Although there has been no comprehensive NOAANavy Low Frequency Active


(LFA) study to date, NOAA and the Navy did prepare a preliminary report last
summer on the investigation into the stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas.
A final report on this investigation should be completed this summer. We will pro-
vide a copy of the report as soon as it is available.
In addition, NOAA consulted with the Navy on a Environmental Impact State-
ment on LFA for their Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System, described more
fully below. Our liaison with Navy indicates that the Executive Summary of the
Final EIS was provided to your staff. Copies of the entire Final OEIS/EIS and tech-
nical reports of this research are available from Navy. NOAA will be pleased to as-
sist the Committee in obtaining these reports, as desired:

Background on NOAANavy LFA Consultation


In the early stages of the preparation of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active Overseas Environment Impact State-
ment/Environmental Impact Statement (LFA OEIS/EIS), Navy organized a Sci-
entific Working Group (SWG) on The Potential Effects of Low Frequency Sound on
the Marine Environment. This was a forum for scientific discourse among govern-
ment and non-governmental organizations to address the underlying scientific
issues. NMFS participated in the SWG and throughout the progress of the resulting
scientific research and its integration into the OEIS/EIS as a cooperating agency
with Navy.
Navy provided resources for the Low Frequency Sound Scientific Research Pro-
gram (LFS SRP), that involved approximately 60 researchers studying the potential
effects of low frequency sound on baleen whales, and the Diver Risk Analysis Team,
that developed guidance for safe exposure limits for recreational and commercial
divers who might be exposed to low frequency sound.

The SRP involved controlled experimental tests in three phases that involved the fol-
lowing species and settings
Phase 1: Blue and fin whales feeding in the Southern California Bight
(SeptemberOctober 1997)
Phase 2: Gray whales migrating past the central California coast (January 1998)
Phase 3: Humpback whales off Hawaii (FebruaryMarch 1998)

Final OEIS/EIS for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active
(SURTASS LFA) SONAR
Technical Report 1 - Low Frequency Sound Scientific Research Program Tech-
nical Report
Technical Report 2 - Acoustic Modeling Results
Technical Report 3 - Summary Report on the Bio-effects of Low Frequency Wa-
terborne Sound (Divers)

Mr. GILCHREST. Last question I have nowI do have a series of


questions, and I would like to set them up here, Scott, and get
some response over the coming weeks: The Chesapeake Bay has
had a program with NOAA for ballast water. And ballast water in
our region, because of the vulnerability of the bay as a result of it
being so shallow, and the heat in the summertime, it is susceptible
to a lot of problems, one of which is the ballast water issue. And
you zeroed out ballast water study in your budget.
We were wondering if we could
Mr. GUDES. We hear you. Not everything can end up back in the
budget, but I should say that actually ballast water is an issue that
the Sea Grant program does a lot of work on. The University of

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
25

Maryland Sea Grant program is working on the use of ultraviolet


light to try to treat water and ballast.
Some of our port partners, like the Long Beach port, are doing
a lot of work to try to educate shippers, as well as with the new
technologies. I dont know the specifics of the
Mr. GILCHREST. We would like to work with you to somehow get
that
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very heartened, Scott, by the interest in ocean exploration,
and I am glad to see that there is a $14 million request in the ad-
ministrations budget.
However, other than your basic comments that you made earlier
about this emphasis, it really seems to me that it really lacks clar-
ity in terms of what kind of exploration this office is going to do.
I know that it is emerging, but I would like to hear some ideas.
And then I want to also ask whether the ideas expressed in last
years report by the previous administrations panel on ocean explo-
ration, especially the emphasis on the development of new tech-
nologies to facilitate deep-ocean exploration, I want to hear what
your comments are about that and see if NOAA has received that
kind of emphasis.
Mr. GUDES. Well, first, a real priority, Congressman, I am look-
ing forward to the $4 million that Congress provides for the jump
start of this program. And as I mentioned, that is going to ensure
a few things, including some specific missions this summer.
We have 30 days on the ALVIN, the deep-sea submersible for the
ship the ATLANTIS, and we will be working on the east coast, for
example. Secondly, we created an office of ocean exploration, a
small office, in our research component. But it is a joint NOAA of-
fice. The first is new frontiers. The second is new products, drugs,
different types of products of the ocean resources. Third, Americas
heritage; there are the shipwrecksI dont have the exact
numberthere are thousands of shipwrecks that have really not
been explored. As I mentioned, census of marine life and deep-
ocean exploration.
There is a theme to the Presidents panel, which talked about
nonhypothesis-driven exploration. It may be a nuanced difference,
but we are trying to follow what the Presidents panel told us they
want us to do in ocean exploration.
And what that means is, in the case of these missions, for exam-
ple, in September, we are going to go to the Hudson Canyon; we
are going to some of the canyons on the east coast. We are going
to go there to explore, but we also are going to be doing science
when we go there.
The difference is that our National Undersea Research Program
over the years has tended to be hypothesis-driven, where we go
into an area for a specific type of research intent. So that is one
area.
In terms of the investment in technology, I do think that for this
country, overall, that is a real issue that the commission pointed
out. The Alvin, which is our principal person submersible, was
built about 1964, 1965, and it has been renovated since that time.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
26

It is principally run by NSF; NOAA has some portion of days on


there. The Aquarius, which is our undersea habitat off the Keys,
which is run by the University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
again, older technology.
That is a real issue, and it is my hope that the ocean exploration
program will get all Federal agencies to focus on the new tech-
nology issue, not just NOAA.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. You know, there is no deeper part of the ocean
than where I am from.
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. And I am sure interested in that technology,
and I am glad you recognize the fact that technology has not been
developed for several decades. And that is always of interest to me.
So now, am I understanding that you are talking about mapping
and you are talking about commercially driven or products that we
can get out of the ocean, and we are also talking about exploitable
resources? Is that what you mean?
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. On the Marine Protected Areas, under Execu-
tive Order 13158, it called for NOAA and other Federal agencies
to develop a nationwide system of Marine Protected Areas. In your
budget, there is request of $3 million to complete this process that
was detailed by this executive order.
How much of this money has been spent for this purpose? And
is this money sufficient to carry out the activities envisioned under
this executive order?
Mr. GUDES. I think it is only a one-person office in the Fisheries
Santa Cruz lab that we have. And that is really the science center,
if you will, or the site that we will run a lot of science for this issue
of MPAs, which is a term, actually, I think, that probably means
a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And I probably
should comment on that.
And then secondly, at the training site in Charleston, at the
Coastal Services Center, we try to work with marine managers in
terms of the larger issue of MPAs. We did that out of existing
funds. I think we are talking several hundred thousand dollars in
the current year.
The budget proposal is $3 million, actually, to reinforce those ca-
pabilities and to be able to do more science in terms of MPAs over-
all. Our marine sanctuaries, all 14 of them, are MPAs. Our 25 Na-
tional Estuarine Research Reserves are MPAs. There are also spe-
cial areas of protection within those sites; those are MPAs.
And so one of the issues on this whole issue, if you will, is the
definition of an MPA. For us, it means all of the above. And often,
the issue is, what is the science behind what kind of benefit this
sort of area of special protection will have. We need to do that, and
we are hopeful that the budget request will be supported.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, you know, in general, I am in support of
MPAs, but there is a lot of loose thinking about what constitutes
MPAs. And more importantly, at the community level, it is being
interpreted to mean various things and being used in long-standing
arguments between people interested in protecting the environ-
ment, people interested in pursuing indigenous practices.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
27

And it is very important that a very clear definition be given to


this and, more importantly, that sufficient outreach be given to
stakeholders in local communities, so that they have a good under-
standing. Because otherwise, I think we are setting up a dynamic
for some local conflicts which are entirely unnecessary.
Mr. GUDES. I think next week, Congressman, we are doing a
public meeting in Charleston to talk about these issues. And a few
weeks ago, we held one here in Washington, DC.
And I agree with you, there is a lot of confusion about the issue
of what does exactly MPA mean. If Margaret Davidson was here,
who will be coming up, she would remind us this is an inter-
national term. Marine Protected Areas is an international term
about special areas.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. All right, thanks.
I have other questions that I will submit for the record and let
you proceed you to the other hearing.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
[NOAAs response to Mr. Underwoods statement follows:]
Consumption of shrimp has steadily increased over the last decade; rising from
2.2 pounds per capita in 1990 to 3.0 pounds in 1999. The U.S. shrimp fishery has
been relatively stable over that period, with landings fluctuating between a high in
1990 of 213.9 million pounds and low of 175 million pounds (heads-off weight) in
1994. In 1999, U.S. landings were 189.1 million pounds. According to the state of
Texas, Texas shrimpers land about 70 million pounds of shrimp a year. The indus-
try is experiencing low profit margins and faces competition from foreign imports
and farm raised shrimp. Approximately 45 million pounds are raised annually on
Texas shrimp farms. To meet the increase in consumer demand, imports of shrimp
have continued to rise over the 1990s. Imports of shrimp, at 579.4 million pounds
(heads-off weight) in 1990, have steadily increased to 959.9 million pounds in 1999.
Setbacks to the Texas shrimping industry in recent years include rising fuel costs,
level price of shrimp caught, the prohibition against fishing in Mexican waters, and
measures to reduce the catch of sea turtles and other species in shrimp nets. The
Texas shrimp industry is overcapitalized and the state is reducing the number of
bay shrimpers in its waters. Although there has been some reduction in the shrimp
fleet there remains a large number of vessels in the fishery. There were 5,676 ves-
sels in the Gulf shrimp fishery in 1990, 4,682 vessels in 1993 and 4,246 vessels in
1998 (the latest year available).

Mr. Ortiz?
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple, or three
questions for the Under Secretary.
What is the priority of NOAA for fish stock assessments, in par-
ticular, the red snapper stock? How is NOAA working to address
this need? And if this is a priority, what funding is being requested
for these type of activities?
Mr. GUDES. Congressman, red snapper is a very significant fish-
ery, obviously, in the Gulf of Mexico. Bill Hogarth is here, who, be-
fore he got to Washington, was the southeast regional director.
It is a difficult type of species in that they tend to congregate in
certain areas, and it is a little more difficult to survey. We obvi-
ously use both our independent data as well as the industry statis-
tics to take a look. It also is a species that is not a directed fishery
but rather on the shrimp fishery, and so that is a big issue.
I would say that, last year, Congress came forward with $8.3 mil-
lion to help us do the kind of surveys that you have asked us to
do. And that was one of the issues, Congressman. Our budget in-
cludes the continuation of $8.3 million, and I believe that our men

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
28

and women in places like our Pascagoula laboratory will do the


kind of research needed. And with the right management meas-
ures, we will bring back the stocks of red snapper.
Mr. ORTIZ. I have some other questions, like Mr. Underwood.
I would like to enter into the record a story that came out in
New York yesterday about progress and what we used to have. And
this is for both of you; Mr. Jones as well.
[The news article referred to follows:]
Two Breeds of Survivor: Gulf Shrimp and Texas Shrimpers

BY R. W. APPLE JR.

NEW YORK TIMES, MAY 2, 2001


ARANSAS PASS, Tex.For the better part of the last century, they billed this
little port near Corpus Christi as the shrimp capital of Texas. As a matter of fact,
it was one of the shrimp capitals of the United States, working flat-out to help sat-
isfy the nations ravenous appetite for its favorite shellfish.
But not anymore. A few shrimpers still operate out of windswept Conn Brown
Harbor, but the mood along the docks is decidedly downbeat.
Imported shrimp have made up for any shortfall in the catch here and elsewhere
in this country, so prices have not risen much. But fresh, never-frozen shrimpal-
ways that little bit pinker and sweeter, always that little bit more succulent, in my
obdurately old-fashioned vieware harder to find now, even in stores and on res-
taurant menus hard by the Gulf of Mexico.
Stop for breakfast at the Bakery Cafe , founded in 1929, for a glimpse of Aransas
Pass in its glory days. Color photographs mounted on the walls show dozens of
trawlers in smart red-and-white livery, lined up with military precision, with a for-
est of masts and booms towering above.
A waitress, whose name tag said Bobbi Ann, noticed me eyeing the photos and
put me straight.
Long gone, she said. Every one of them.
Long gone to Nicaragua, to which they were dispatched six years ago by their
owner, Sydney E. Herndon. For a half-century, his companies, doing business here
under the trade name Gulf King, caught, packed and shipped gulf shrimp.
But Mr. Herndon, who is now 83 years old, finally gave up, convinced that he
could find better weather, less bureaucratic bother and cheaper labor farther south,
plus ample stocks of highly prized pink shrimp. As for the shrimp stocks here along
the Coastal Bend of Texas, which once seemed inexhaustible, their well-being is the
subject of urgent and impassioned debate. Here, as in other parts of the world, a
combination of rapidly accelerating demand for fish, heightened ecological conscious-
ness and more aggressive government intervention has unsettled the old order.
Marine biologists, determined to safeguard the local sea turtle population, espe-
cially a rare species called Kemps ridley, see the shrimpers nets as a threat to their
efforts, and government officials have backed turtle-protection plans. Fearful that
overfishing could expose gulf shrimp themselves to the kind of dramatic depletion
that hit the cod of the Grand Banks and the redfish of the Gulf of Mexico, the offi-
cials have also adopted tight restrictions on commercial shrimping in this area.
The fishermen, beleaguered, feel misunderstood and persecuted.
Im like the last of the Mohicans, a grizzled skipper said as he unloaded his
days catch at the Peoples Street THead, a pier in downtown Corpus Christi,
where a few small shrimp boats share space with excursion boats. Whos going to
want to go into this work now?
Wilma Anderson, the hard-boiled, hard- smoking executive director of the Texas
Shrimp Association, acknowledged that times are toughbut not, she said, because
the shrimp are disappearing. Poor catches in recent years, she insisted, were part
of the normal cycle of bad years and good, caused by the changing conditions in the
estuaries where the shrimp eggs hatch.
Our big problem is the environmentalists and the bureaucrats, Mrs. Anderson
said. They wont let us catch our maximum, even in good times. The recreation and
environment lobbies get listened to, but we dont. They outshout us at hearings, and
theyd as soon as not put us out of business.
Although some studies have shown a 30 percent decline in shrimp stocks, the fish-
ermen question those findings, and Hal Osburn, the director of the coastal fisheries

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
29
division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in Austin, conceded that esti-
mating fish stocks was an elusive thing at best.
He said that there had been no significant decline in the amount of shrimp landed
in Texas in the last five years; the average from 1994 through 1998, he said, was
216 million pounds, and the total for 1999 was 236 million pounds.
But we think we see warning signs, little things, Mr. Osburn continued, and
because of them, we think it is time to be proactive. So, weve tightened up the regu-
lations. The shrimpers hate it, but the fact is, if we wait until the stocks start to
collapse, it may be too late to do much about it. And I dont propose to preside over
the demise of the shrimp fishery in the gulf.
Federal figures collected over the last 39 years show that, on average, shrimp are
caught earlier and earlier in their life cycle; that means that more and more of them
are taken before they have a chance to reproduce. New technology has made it pos-
sible to peel and market the tiniest shrimp.
All in all, it seemed to us that they were in danger of harvesting most of their
chickens as chicks, Mr. Osburn said. We wanted to pull back from that, not to pe-
nalize the gulf shrimp industry but to save it.
DEEPFRIED gulf shrimp are almost as much a Texas staple, at least in the
eastern half of the state, as barbecue and chicken- fried steak. But these days, a
lot of the gulf shrimp come from other, less familiar waters.
Already, more than half the shrimp consumed in the United States comes from
overseas, according to federal statistics. Much of this originates in Ecuador and
Thailand, which specialize in farm-raised shellfish. Increasingly, gulf fishermen also
have to compete with domestic shrimp farmers, including some located here along
the Texas coast and others who operate in the seemingly unpromising setting of arid
West Texas, where they utilize saline groundwater.
In 1990, shrimp farming was essentially zero in the United States, said Addison
L. Lawrence, a shrimp mariculture expert at Texas A&Ms Port Aransas campus,
on Mustang Island to the east. Today, its a $20 to $30 million annual industry
in terms of value to the farmer. No matter what happens to the gulf fishery, farmed
shrimp will have to fill much of future need.
The most famous seafood restaurant in these parts, the Kings Inn, sits pictur-
esquely in the evocative coastal marshlands south of Corpus Christi. On the waters
edge, its advertisements say. As we approached the place along little-used back
roads, my wife, Betsey, and I couldnt help thinking that the shrimp must prac-
tically jump from the water into the fry basket.
An old-fashioned, curiously formal sort of fried fish emporium, the inn boasts
white tablecloths, a crystal chandelier and a dress code. We overheard a hostess po-
litely instructing a sheriff, who was sitting at the next table, to remove his hat
while eating. Face reddening, he meekly complied.
Someone in the Kings kitchen knows how to fry. Oysters in a cornmeal batter
were small, firm and nutty. Onion rings were sweet and spicy. And the shrimp were
all that we had hoped forbutterflied, incredibly plump and juicy, their crunchy
jackets light and greaseless, awaiting a squirt or two of lemon juice or a drop of
Tabasco. We must have eaten a dozen each, and I quietly confessed to myself that
I could have handled a dozen more.
When it came time to pay the bill, I complimented the young man at the register
and asked whether the inn had its own shrimp boats.
Oh, no, not at all, he responded. Those shrimp come in by truck from San Anto-
nio, from Syscoyou know, the big wholesale house.
We looked on other tables in the area for fresh local shrimp, without much suc-
cess. A waiter at Vietnam, a busy place in Corpus Christi, told us that the chef
stopped using local shellfish in his spicy Vietnamese shrimp salad and in his shrimp
with eggplant because it sometimes smelled of gasoline. But Guy Carnathans two
restaurants out at Port Aransas, across the Inland Waterway, make do with the
genuine article.
Mr. Carnathan buys his shrimp every day from a local boat. At Beulah, his
upmarket establishment, he seasons them with lime and cayenne, grills them a sec-
ond or two less than you or I would and serves them with a cilantro pesto on the
side. The centers of the shrimp stay sweet, mild, still fleshy, while the edges,
charred by the grill, provide a crisp, bitter accent.
Next door, at his bar and bistro, which is called The Other Guys Cafe , Mr.
Carnathan turns out nonpareil regional classics, including deep-fried shrimp. I
found them wonderfully tender, a notch better than the Kings Inns, and the por-
tions were smaller, so this time we did order seconds. There is freezing and freez-
ing, an old seafood hand told me. Freeze shrimp the minute you catch them and
keep them frozen until you cook themdo that and you cant tell them from fresh.
But thats not what happens in 99 percent of the cases these days. Theyre frozen,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
30
thawed, sorted, refrozen and rethawed. You have to have a cast-iron palate not to
taste the difference between that stuff and fresh shrimp.
In addition to telling the shrimpers where they can fish, when they can fish and
what they can catch, the state has required them for the last decade to use turtle
excluder devices, which are metal plates or pieces of webbing designed to keep tur-
tles out of the nets.
The fight to save gulf turtles centers on Kemps ridleys, the most seriously endan-
gered of the five sea turtle species in the region. They weigh as much as 100 pounds
each.
Environmental groups sought the excluders and tighter restrictions on shrimping
zones and seasons in the conviction that most of the turtles washed up on beaches
had died in shrimpers nets. Since the various limitations have been imposed, the
population of Kemps ridleys has slowly increased to about 9,000 adults, according
to Donna J. ShaverMiller, a research biologist, who heads the United States Geo-
logical Surveys field station on nearby Padre Island.
Not all the turtles that are strandedkilled, wounded, sickare stranded be-
cause of the shrimp trawlers, said Dr. ShaverMiller, whose soft-spoken manner
masks a passion for her work. But its a significant factor. Our figures show that
there has always been a big reduction in strandings during the closed shrimp sea-
son.
Mr. Herndon, the rubicund old-timer who runs Gulf King, has another set of
figures, which, he said, proves the opposite. Shrimpers, he said dont catch any
turtles, never have, but the people who make the rules dont accept what we say.
During last summers closure, he insisted, there were 41 strandings, against 38 in
the comparable six-week period that followed the closure.
In addition to moving his boats south, Mr. Herndon was forced to shut down a
$12 million shrimp processing plant that was built in 1986.
If the shrimp industry collapses, Mr. Herndon said, with considerable asperity,
its Osburns and Shavers regulations that will cause it, not overfishing by our
boats.
The Texas authorities began sharply curtailing the number of new bay shrimp
boat licenses in 1995 to guard against the danger of more and more boats pursuing
a finite number of shellfish. So far, 550 licenses have been bought back for $2.8 mil-
lion, and Mr. Osburn, the Parks and Wildlife official, said he hopes to get the num-
ber down to roughly 1,500 from twice that five years ago.
Thousands of Vietnamese refugees, fishermen in Southeast Asia, took up
shrimping 20 years ago in Texas and Louisiana, originally in small, cheap wooden
boats well suited for fishing in the shallow, protected bays along the coast. Many
settled in Rockport, a fishing village just north of here; its local celebrity is Dat
Nguyen, a linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys.
But bay fishing dwindled. Some immigrants found other jobs in Corpus Christi
or Rockport, and others, with more capital, bought bigger seagoing boats and joined
the VietnameseAmerican colonies around Palacios and Port Lavaca, farther up the
coast. Some of those boatsmodern, efficient shrimp-stalking machinescost
$600,000.
In the Mekong Delta, where most of the Vietnamese came from, they would qual-
ify as ocean liners.

Mr. ORTIZ. We dont have a shrimping fleet any more. We have


to put up with a lot of imported shrimp, from other countries. And
I would like you to answer this question for the record. I think this
is a very, very interesting problem.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Ortiz. Your question
will be submitted for the record.
Mr. Gudes, thank you for coming. Good luck in your next hear-
ing.
Mr. Jones, we will be back as soon as we can.
Mr. GUDES. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. The committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come back to order. We
are trying to figure out what we are doing up here.
[Laughter.]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
31

I think what we will do is, we will start with Mr. Jones. We will
hear your testimony, sir. And then we will have the members ask
questions both to NOAA and to deal with Fish and Wildlife issues.
Mr. Jones?

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, ACTING DIRECTOR,


U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to
work with you in any way we need to as you go through your pro-
cedures this morning. We have plenty of hours, too.
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss the Fiscal Year
2002 budget request for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The admin-
istration is requesting $1.78 billion, an increase of about $30 mil-
lion from last years request and $205 million more than was ap-
propriated in Fiscal Year 2000. My formal statement contains ex-
tensive details relating to these amounts that I wont repeat now,
but I do want to highlight some of the issues.
The request for the resource management account, which funds
the bulk of the services operational programs, is $807 million,
which is essentially the same amount appropriated last year, al-
though it has some different components, and $92 million more
than was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2000.
Within this $807 million for what we would call base programs,
there are proposed reductions of $41 million, primarily from the
elimination of earmarks and pass-through funds and corresponding
increases, which just coincidentally added up to about the same
amount, restoring about $41 million for high-priority programs and
for pay costs, the increases for those uncontrollable expenses,
which Mr. Gudes has also alluded to in his testimony.
Thus, while total funding for the resource management account
is the same as last year, there are program amounts which have
been adjusted to reflect the Presidents priorities. There are also
proposed reductions in the additional funding provided the service
in Title A of last years appropriation act. Most of these reflect the
Presidents proposal to fully fund the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund.
Within the resource management account, we are proposing an
increase of $15 million over last years enacted level for the Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge System. $10 million of this will be used to
hire additional maintenance workers for essential needs, to in-
crease annual preventive maintenance, and to address the mainte-
nance backlog, while an additional $5 million will go toward cov-
ering the increase in our fixed costs. There is also $12.2 million in
our construction request for refuge facility rehabilitation projects.
This Subcommittee has, for many years, been a champion of in-
creased funding for the refuge system. I am very pleased that the
administrations request continues the increase in funding for the
system that we have seen with your help in the last several years,
and hope that we can continue to count on working with you to
build on your support this year and in the future.
We will provide Congress later this year with a report that is
called for in the refuge centennial act on how we might address ad-
ditional unfunded needs.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
32

In the Endangered Species Program, we are requesting an in-


crease of $2 million for endangered species listing. This request
provides a 34 percent increase above Fiscal Year 2001 and a 37
percent increase above Fiscal Year 2000 funding levels.
This increase will help return balance to the listing program, en-
abling the service to protect species that are in decline, respond to
citizen petitions to list new species, and designate critical habitat
for species that are already listed.
Due to a flood of litigation, as detailed in my formal statement,
we cannot now do this. All of our available funds must be spent
as dictated solely by court orders and settlement agreements.
I want to note that this proposal was initiated by the service over
the last several months, and we viewed it as a continuation of ef-
forts that began several years ago to find a more rational way to
address this issue.
This is a real problem which needs to be addressed, Mr. Chair-
man, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with you and
other interested members of the committee and the Congress as a
whole to craft a solution that would meet with wide approval.
The request for both our fisheries and law enforcement programs
is slightly more than last year, while that for the contaminants and
migratory bird programs is essentially unchanged. There is a slight
decrease requested for the Habitat Conservation Program.
Mr. Chairman, the Presidents decision to fully fund the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, as you noted in your opening re-
marks, includes $450 million for Federal land acquisition, as well
as $450 million for the stateside land and water program.
Of the Federal portion of this, the administration is requesting
$164 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Within that $164
million, $104 million will be used for refuge easements and land ac-
quisitions, and an additional $60 million for two proposed new
grant programs. Included within the refuge land acquisition pro-
posal is $1 million for Blackwater refuge in Maryland, $3.2 million
for the Forsythe refuge in New Jersey, $3 million for Laguna
Atascosa in Texas, $500,000 for the Louisiana black bear complex,
and a number of other priority acquisitions.
In terms of the two new grant programs that are included in the
Land and Water Conservation Fund proposal, the first of these is
a $50 million landowner incentive program, which will provide
competitively awarded grants to states, tribes, and territories for
technical and financial assistance to landowners who voluntarily
desire to protect and manage wildlife habitat on their land while
they continue traditional land use practices.
The second new program is a $10 million private stewardship
grant program. These grants would go directly to individuals and
groups that are engaged in local, private, and voluntary conserva-
tion efforts that benefit listed candidate endangered species or at-
risk species.
The states are given the opportunity to provide additional fund-
ing for some of the services programs through the Presidents pro-
posal to expand the purposes of the stateside Land and Water Con-
servation Fund. Under this proposal, states would receive flexi-
bility to use these funds for endangered species and other wildlife
and habitat conservation efforts, including protection,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
33

enhancement, and restoration of wetlands, if consistent with the


North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving us the oppor-
tunity to present an overview of the Fish and Wildlife Services Fis-
cal Year 2002 budget request, and we look forward to answering
any questions that you or the other members of the committee
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of Marshall Jones, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interiorse pelican
I appreciate this opportunity to present the Presidents Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
Request for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Services Fiscal Year 2002 budget requests $1.782 billion, consisting of
$1,091,265,000 in current appropriations and $690,754,000 in permanent appropria-
tions. The Fiscal Year 2002 budget for current appropriations is $167,935,000 less
than Congress enacted in Fiscal Year 2001, but an increase of $204,747,000 above
Fiscal Year 2000. The 2002 request for the resource management operating account
totals $806,752,000, $64,000 less than levels enacted for Fiscal Year 2001. The Land
Acquisition account, is funded at $164,401,000, including $104,401,000 for land and
easement acquisition from willing sellers, $50,000,000 for a new Landowner Incen-
tive Program, and $10,000,000 for a new Private Stewardship Grants Program. The
Construction account is funded at $35,849,000 in accordance with the Departments
five-year plans for construction and maintenance.
The Services principal trust responsibilities encompass protecting and conserving
migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain marine mammals, and
inter-jurisdictional fisheries. The Service mission is to work with others, to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing ben-
efit of the American people. The Service manages 535 National Wildlife Refuges, 78
Ecological Services Field Stations, 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 64 Fisheries Re-
sources Offices, nine Fish Health Centers, seven Fish Technology Centers, 37 Wet-
land Management/waterfowl production areas, and 50 Coordination Areas, totaling
about 94 million acres. We work with diverse partners, including other federal agen-
cies, state and local governments, tribes, international organizations, private enti-
ties, and the local citizenry, both on and off Service lands.
The Services Fiscal Year 2002 Budget increases resources for state and local con-
servation initiatives and provides our state, local and tribal partners more flexibility
to support the programs that best suit their needs. The Services mission will be
furthered by the Presidents historic decision to fully fund the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million. Full LWCF funding and more flexible pro-
gram choices will enable states, tribes, communities and private landowners to pro-
tect great places and conserve and restore open space for recreation and wildlife.
For example, states may use their share of the new Department of the Interior $450
million state LWCF program for grants in line with their habitat restoration and
other conservation priorities within their overall allocation.
Two new grant programs under LWCF and administered by the Service can
achieve state and local species protection and habitat restoration priorities. A new
$50 million Landowner Incentive Program for states and tribes will help private
landowners protect and manage habitat for imperiled specieswhile continuing to
engage in traditional land use or working land conservation practices. A new $10
million Private Stewardship Program will fund grants to individuals and groups for
conservation projects on private lands.
All of these efforts anticipate the future needs of conservation, as land use deci-
sions grow more complex and increasingly require cooperation with states, tribes,
communities, and the private sector. We will assist these partners, who are among
Americas most ardent conservationists, in their efforts to preserve lands and the
wildlife that inhabits them.
In summary, the programs and projects contained in this budget serve people,
champion fish and wildlife, and address every major habitat type across the nation.
The Service intends to do this, while streamlining work practices and improving
program delivery. The Service will continue using cross-cutting cost allocation meth-
odology to fund general operating expenses.
In addition, the budget proposes several targeted initiatives to address high-pri-
ority conservation needs in California, the Pacific Northwest, the Florida Ever-
glades, and the Great Lakes.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
34
CALFED Bay Delta Restoration
The Service requests an additional $1,000,000 to support the multi-agency
CALFED BayDelta Program that rehabilitates ecosystems and improves water
management in Californias SacramentoSan Joaquin BayDelta estuary. The
Service has a major role in addressing compliance with state and federal endan-
gered species acts; managing the Environmental Water Account; and overseeing
wetlands, flood plain management, and restoration contracts under the CALFED
Program. The Service will participate on collaborative, multi-agency teams to de-
velop water project operations and will take part in many of the approximately 170
different site-specific projects.
Trinity River Restoration
The Service requests an additional $2,000,000 to implement a comprehensive
river restoration program for the Trinity River in northern California and southern
Oregon. The program specifies flows in the river, restoration actions, and moni-
toring/adaptive management necessary to restore the lost fisheries of the Trinity
River. The Service will work closely with the Trinity Management Council to select
the highest priority habitat restoration projects. The projects will help increase pop-
ulations of coho, steelhead, and chinook salmon, increase suitable spawning habitat,
and establish adequate water quality for essential fish migration.
Columbia Basin Salmon Conservation
The Service requests an additional $3,500,000 to address salmon conservation in
the Columbia River Basin of the Pacific Northwest. Development in the Columbia
Basin has contributed to the decline of listed fish (bull trout, Kootenai white stur-
geon, and salmon and steelhead populations) and others. The Service, with over a
century of involvement in fisheries management in the Columbia Basin and Endan-
gered Species Act responsibility for bull trout and Kootenai white sturgeon, will be
a key player in this multi-species, basin-wide strategy. We will restore and protect
federal and non-federal habitat; modify fish propagation strategies; improve hydro-
power operations for native aquatic species survival; manage harvests to minimize
take of listed species while meeting treaty trust responsibilities; provide sustainable
levels of sport and commercial harvest; and, address Caspian tern depredation on
juvenile salmon.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
The Service requests an additional $2,700,000 to support the Comprehensive Ev-
erglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the most far-reaching and ambitious ecosystem
restoration project ever undertaken in the United States. The 30-year restoration
effort is designed to restore the Everglades hydrological and ecological functions,
which have been seriously degraded by 50 years of flood control and drainage
projects. We will work with the Corps of Engineers and other interagency partners
to ensure ecosystem benefits consistent with long-term CERP project goals. These
efforts, a major Service focus in South Florida, will restore habitat for wetland-de-
pendent and other aquatic species, restore native aquatic species, recreational and
commercial fisheries, and other aquatic resources.
Great Lakes Consent Decree
The Service requests an additional $1,200,000 to uphold tribal fishing rights and
allocate fishery resources between tribes and state fishers in accordance with the
U.S. v. Michigan 2000 Consent Decree. As a party to the Consent Decree, the
United States, through the Service, is required to provide expert technical support
on dispute issues related to the Decree; provide biological expertise and technical
assistance to tribes and the State of Michigan on the allocation and management
of shared fishery resources; maintain and increase the number of lake trout stocked
in Lakes Michigan and Huron; and, evaluate the success of lake trout rehabilitation.
Let me now direct my comments about the Fiscal Year 2002 budget to the spe-
cifics of each of the resource management programs the Service administers.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programs and Benefits
There is a national consensus that fish and wildlife conservation is integral to our
way of life, our national economy, and the outdoor legacy we will leave for future
generations. Viable fish and wildlife populations are resources the nation cannot af-
ford to lose. More than ever, the Service is turning to conservation partners for com-
mon-sense approaches that benefit both wildlife and people.
Resource Management
Ecological ServicesThe Service requests a total of $198,493,000, a net decrease
of $11,389,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level, but an increase of

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
35
$12,111,000 above Fiscal Year 2000 levels, for Ecological Services programs, includ-
ing:
Endangered SpeciesThe Service requests a total of $111,814,000,
$9,133,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level, but $5,743,000 above
Fiscal Year 2000. The program funding will support operations that en-
hance implementation of the Endangered Species Act, one of the nations
most significant environmental laws.
Candidate Conservation * The request will keep three species from being
listed by supporting additional Candidate Conservation Agreements with
private landowners and state and local governments to better manage
threats to species and their habitats before they become critically imperiled.
Listing * The request includes a $1,962,000 program increase to address
a critical backlog of required listing actions, help meet statutory time
frames, complete court-ordered listing and critical habitat actions within
imposed deadlines, and adequately inform the public about listing actions.
This program determines whether to list wildlife and plant species. If listed,
a species is protected under the ESA, including prohibitions on taking (e.g.
killing or harming) the species.
This request provides a 34% increase above Fiscal Year 2001, and a 37%
increase above Fiscal Year 2000 funding levels. This increase will help re-
turn balance to the listing program, enabling the Service to protect species
that are in decline, respond to citizen petitions to list new species and des-
ignate critical habitat for species that are already listed.
A flood of court orders requiring the Service to designate critical habitat
for hundreds of species threatens to consume the entire listing budget in
Fiscal Year 2002, as it has in 2001. The budget increase will not be enough
by itself to restore this balance. In fact, after complying with existing court
orders to designate critical habitat, the Service does not have any remain-
ing resources or staff to place new species on the list of threatened and en-
dangered species or to respond to citizen petitions to list new species. In
short, because of the lawsuits, we currently do not have an effective listing
program.
The prior Administration requested that Congress place a cap on the list-
ing program beginning in 1998, and this Administration is asking Congress
to continue the cap. The reason for the cap is to ensure that the Service
can maintain an overall endangered species program that not only includes
listing new species and designating critical habitat but also undertaking re-
covery programs, working with states, landowners, and others to conserve
species before they require listing, consulting with federal agencies where
required by the Act, and delisting species when they have recovered. Absent
the cap, the Service is concerned that the courts might require us to take
funds from not only other endangered species activities, but also possibly
other resource management accounts to designate critical habitat. If this
were to happen, the imbalance that currently plagues the listing program
could spread not only to the entire endangered species program, but also
potentially affect other non-endangered species resource management pro-
grams within the Service.
The President, therefore, is continuing efforts begun by the last Adminis-
tration to break this gridlock and get back to the important business of pro-
tecting imperiled species. We are asking Congress to concur that funds be
spent on listing actions that provide the greatest benefit for species at risk
of extinction. This proposal would not change any of the underlying sub-
stantive requirements of the ESA, but would allow the Service to use its
resources to protect the species that are in greatest need of listing. The
Service hopes to engage the public and interested groups in the develop-
ment of a listing priority system, and then to put the resulting priority sys-
tem out for public review and comment this summer.
We recognize that this proposal has resulted in considerable controversy.
While the problem is real and needs to be addressed, we would welcome
the opportunity to work with this Committee and other interested Members
to craft a solution that meets with wide approval.
Consultation/HCP * The request includes a $520,000 program increase to
support the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. In addition, we
will continue to address the growing demand by landowners, state and local
governments, and developers for Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). The
Service expects to be involved in implementing more than 650 HCPs cov-
ering more than 48 million acres in Fiscal Year 2002, and developing an
additional 200 HCPs, covering 26 million acres.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
36
As part of these efforts, the Service will assist in development of a re-
gional HCP with the Edwards Aquifer Authority in central Texas for indi-
vidual, municipal and industrial water withdrawals from the Edwards Aq-
uifer. Also Fiscal Year 2002, final application documents are expected from
Pima County, in southern Arizona for the Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan, a multispecies, watershed-based HCP on 5.9 million acres. The
Service also anticipates an HCP in Fiscal Year 2002 with International
Paper for the threatened gopher tortoise on more than 275,000 forested
acres in Alabama and Mississippi. The Service, during informal and formal
interagency consultations, now reviews approximately 62,000 federal ac-
tions for section 7 compliance per year.
Recovery * The request includes a $390,000 program increase to support
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. In addition, we will con-
tinue activities to recover, downlist, and delist species, conduct ESA-man-
dated, post-delisting monitoring, and involve private landowners in recovery
through Safe Harbor agreements. The most recent delisting is that of the
Aleutian Canada goose. The Service will intensify efforts for species in need
of special attention, such as Columbia River salmon with a requested in-
crease of $625,000.
Habitat ConservationThe Service requests a total of $76,209,000 for
Habitat Conservation programs, $2,081,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 en-
acted level, but $5,760,000 above Fiscal Year 2000.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife * The request will continue this highly ef-
fective program for voluntary habitat restoration on private lands. The 14-
year-old Partners program has quietly worked with 24,000 private land-
owners through voluntary partnerships to implement on-the-ground habitat
restoration projects across the country. The program provides cost-sharing
and one-on-one restoration expertise to assist private landowners in restor-
ing wetlands, grasslands, streams and other habitats important to migra-
tory birds, anadromous (migratory) fish, and declining species. These habi-
tat restoration projects will enhance habitat for fish and wildlife while rec-
ognizing the need to maintain profitable agriculture, sustainable commu-
nities, and the nations overall quality of life.
Project Planning * The request includes a $1,690,000 program increase
to support the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and a
$1,000,000 program increase to support efforts (consistent with the Cali-
fornia BayDelta Environmental Enhancement Act) to assess potential fish,
wildlife, and habitat restoration impacts of federal, state, local and tribal
water management projects. The San Francisco BayDelta area has many
listed, proposed, and candidate species, including Delta smelt, Sacramento
splittail, California clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, and Suisun this-
tle. The Service will assist federal, state, and local agencies in planning and
implementing habitat restoration and species recovery.
Environmental ContaminantsThe Service requests a total of
$10,470,000 for the Environmental Contaminants Program, a net decrease
of $175,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level, but $608,000 above
Fiscal Year 2000 levels.
The request will continue to fund cooperative partnerships with federal,
state and private entities to identify, quantify and provide remedies for pol-
lution problems affecting fish, wildlife and habitat resources. In particular,
the contaminants program will continue proactive efforts with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to improve water quality criteria, assess effects
of EPAs proposed new and re-registered pesticides, and continue work at
Superfund sites; coordinate pre-spill planning, response efforts and develop-
ment of new response options; and implement integrated pest management
to control invasive and nuisance species on Service lands.
National Wetlands InventoryThe Service will continue to strategically
produce maps and updated digital resource information, with emphasis on
areas of the nation experiencing substantial developmental growth and
change. Contemporary habitat maps in digital format will also assist in the
planning for needed energy and infrastructure development projects that
avoid potential adverse effects on trust fish and wildlife resources.
National Wildlife Refuge System: Fulfilling the PromiseThe Service requests
$314,664,000 for National Wildlife Refuge operations and maintenance, a net in-
crease of $14,986,000 above the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level and $55,687,000
above Fiscal Year 2000, which includes a $10 million program increase to address
the Secretary of the Interiors commitment to reducing maintenance backlogs.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
37
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt was so impressed upon seeing Pelican
Island, a tiny Florida island crowded with birds, he immediately established it as
the first federal wildlife refuge. Pelican Island still thrives as a living legacy and
symbol of the Refuge Systems upcoming Centennial. The budget requests funds to
begin constructing an Interpretive Center and Administrative facility to share Peli-
can Islands legacy.
These are historic times for the National Wildlife Refuge System. As we approach
the centennial anniversary, we are proud of the progress we have made together
strengthening the Refuge System. Several important events during the last few
years have given us the opportunity to make the Refuge System an even more pow-
erful conservation tool and to provide even greater opportunities for people to enjoy
the Refuge System. These events set the stage for us to address our most pressing
operational and maintenance needs, and to develop comprehensive conservation
plans for each refuge in the System. Refuge operations and maintenance focus areas
include:
Wildlife * The Refuge System will implement projects that support its
core mission to protect wildlife. The projects will improve science-based
management, expand management capabilities on newly acquired refuge
lands, and enhance the protection and management of endangered species
throughout the refuge system.
Habitat * The Refuge System will employ a full range of land manage-
ment activities, from protection of pristine areas to intensive manipulation
of soils, water, topography, and vegetative cover, and fighting invasive spe-
cies. These invaders threaten critical wildlife habitat and native species on
refuges and adjacent lands. Invasive species spread nationally over 5,400
additional acres each year, and now affect more than six million refuge
acres, indicative of invasive species threats in many communities.
People * The Refuge System will accommodate more than 37 million visi-
tors in 2002, a number expected to grow by another six million by the Cen-
tennial in 2003. The Service will improve public use, environmental edu-
cation, recreational, and interpretive programs on refuges to better serve
these visitors. Other high priorities include the recreational fee demonstra-
tion program, refuge law enforcement, support for the Alaska subsistence
program, Challenge Cost Share grants, the Native American Graves Protec-
tion and Repatriation Act, and volunteer activities.
Refuge Maintenance * The request includes a $10,042,000 program in-
crease to address the most critical annual and deferred maintenance
projects. In Fiscal Year 2002, we will implement a three-step approach to
reducing the deferred maintenance inventory by increasing funding to hire
essential maintenance workers, performing additional annual preventive
maintenance, and performing additional deferred maintenance, including a
$1.8 million increase for condition assessments and improving maintenance
management systems.
Migratory Bird ManagementThe Service requests $25,159,000 for migratory
bird management, a net decrease of $525,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted
level, but $3,560,000 above Fiscal Year 2000.
Conservation and Monitoring * The request includes a $250,000 program
increase to address Caspian tern depredation in support of the Columbia
Basin Salmon initiative. In addition, we will implement management
projects in priority habitats and throughout annual migratory cycles. Mi-
gratory birds travel thousands of miles across and between the Americas.
They are among the best indicators of landscape health. They provide rec-
reational opportunities for millions of people, and a major boost to the econ-
omy. The Migratory Bird Management program provides reliable status and
distribution information that forms the scientific basis for effective con-
servation decisions and sound hunting regulations.
Partnerships in Action: The North American Waterfowl Management
Plan * The Service is improving coordination of the Joint Venture program,
which expanded by nine newly funded Joint Ventures for a total of 15 in
Fiscal Year 2001. This successful program protects and restores essential
habitat for diverse migratory bird species across all of North America, both
on, and, to a greater extent, off Service lands. As of December 2000, Plan
partners have contributed approximately $1.5 billion to protect, restore, or
enhance 5.9 million acres of U.S. wetlands, grasslands, forests, and riparian
habitat, more than one-third of the 17 million acres of U.S. habitat objec-
tives under the Plan.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
38
The Service and more than a thousand communities, governments, non-
profit organizations, ordinary citizens, federal agencies in 49 states, and
academia have participated in this program to date.
Law EnforcementThe Service will implement many important initiatives in our
newly strengthened law enforcement program, including hiring and equipping up to
20 new agents, to fill vacancies, continuing to train the 35 agents hired in Fiscal
Year 2001, establishing a designated port in Anchorage, Alaska, and addressing the
growing docket of wildlife crimes. Todays law enforcement program is at a critical
crossroadsfacing increasingly complex and potentially devastating illegal trade,
unlawful commercial exploitation, habitat destruction, and environmental contami-
nants. Priorities will include ensuring successful species reintroduction and Habitat
Conservation Plans, working with industry to reduce contaminants and other indus-
trial hazards, and controlling illegal wildlife trade.
FisheriesThe Service requests $92,979,000, $950,000 above the Fiscal Year 2001
enacted level and $9,039,000 above Fiscal Year 2000, to continue supporting activi-
ties that restore the nations waterways, native aquatic species, and habitats. Our
waterways are an economic lifeline, provide recreation, and have a significant im-
pact on the quality of life in our communities.
National Fish Hatchery System * The request includes a $1,000,000 pro-
gram increase to support the Columbia River Salmon Initiative and
$575,000 to implement lake trout restoration activities for the U.S. v.
Michigan Consent Decree. Federal hatcheries are a powerful tool for con-
serving biological diversity, restoring imperiled aquatic species, and recov-
ering listed aquatic species. Nearly two-thirds (56) of all approved recovery
plans for fish and more than one-third of all fishery restoration plans pre-
scribe hatchery propagation, refugia, or technology development as essen-
tial components of species recovery. The hatchery system is currently as-
sessing how it will re-direct its activities, with an emphasis on retaining the
wild characteristics and genetic diversity of fish produced for reintroduction
to their native environments. Fish production and refugia strategies com-
plement actions to restore habitats and waterways.
Fish and Wildlife Management * The request includes a $1,625,000 pro-
gram increase to support the Columbia Basin Salmon Initiative, a $625,000
program increase for tribal trust responsibilities under the U.S. v. Michigan
Consent Decree, a $100,000 program increase to support the Comprehen-
sive Everglades Restoration Initiative, and a $2,000,000 program increase
to implement the Record of Decision resulting from the Trinity River Flow
Evaluation to restore steelhead, chinook salmon and coho salmon to pre-
dam levels.
Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance assists state, federal, tribal,
and private partners in restoring watersheds, recovering endangered spe-
cies and managing inter-jurisdictional fisheries and marine mammals by
administering cooperative programs such as the Cooperative Tagging Pro-
gram for striped bass, the MarkRecapture Programs for Pacific salmon,
the Mississippi River Basin Paddlefish Research Project, and the Con-
necticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission Tagging Program. The program
facilitates effective decision-making and large-scale restoration, conserva-
tion and management of aquatic resources by bringing diverse interest
groups together; sharing population and habitat information; and coordi-
nating research, planning, and management activities. These cooperative
activities ensure environmental, economic, and aesthetic benefits of restored
or improved river habitats, increased fish and other aquatic populations,
and sustained recreational and commercial fishing.
General OperationsThe Service requests $124,053,000 a net decrease of
$4,913,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level but an increase of $809,000
above Fiscal Year 2000, for Central Office Administration, Regional Office Adminis-
tration, Service-wide Administrative Support, National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, National Conservation Training Center, and International Affairs programs.
Cost Allocation Methodology
Allocation of General Operations Expenses * The Service has imple-
mented a cost allocation methodology (CAM) to fund general operations ex-
penses. General operations include both administrative and facility support
programs that are essential to all Service programs. CAM distributes these
costs among all Service appropriations and funding accounts based on ac-
tual use of specific business operations to benefiting activities. As a result,
each appropriation and account funds an equitable share of general oper-
ations costs. CAM was implemented in response to internal and external

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
39
(Congress, the General Accounting Office) reviews of Service funding prac-
tices. The CAM is displayed on all funding tables as a non-add item indi-
cating that the operating expenses are integral to program operation.
Streamlining
As part of the overall Department initiative, we will implement
$3,518,000 in administrative cost savings, travel reductions, across-the-
board initiatives, and headquarters and regional consolidation of functions.
ConstructionThe Service requests $35,849,000 for Construction, a net reduction
of $27,028,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level and $17,679,000 below Fis-
cal Year 2000, for our most urgent construction needs.
Construction Projects * The request includes $ 27,357,000 for 18 dam
safety, road and bridge safety, and other priority projects at national wild-
life refuges, fish hatcheries, and law enforcement facilities, including dam
and bridge safety inspections. The rehabilitation and replacement projects
will address the most critical health, safety, and resource protection needs
in the Services FiveYear Construction Plan.
Nationwide Engineering Services * The remaining $8,492,000 supports
the Nationwide Engineering, seismic safety, and environmental compliance
programs.
Land AcquisitionThe Land Acquisition Account has been significantly restruc-
tured to reflect the Presidents commitment to fully funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and enhance partnerships with states, communities,
tribes, and private landowners. The Service requests $104,401,000 for high-priority
acquisition of land and conservation easements from willing sellers. This request
would acquire approximately 53,855 fee interest acres and 23,053 permanent ease-
ment interest acres. Major focus areas for Fiscal Year 2002 include Pelican Island,
Balcones Canyonlands, Canaan Valley, Chickasaw and Columbia. A full list of re-
quested projects is included in the Land Acquisition section of the budget.
The request includes $19,291,000 for acquisition management, land exchanges,
inholding acquisitions, and emergency acquisitions, an increase of $7,218,000 above
the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level. The increase reflects an internal transfer of
$4,526,000 from projects to land acquisition management to more accurately reflect
personnel costs that were charged to projects in Fiscal Year 2001. This is an interim
step, and the Service is working with the Department to estimate non-project costs
and develop standards and the types of costs that should be charged to projects.
Landowner Incentive Program * The budget proposes a $50,000,000
Landowner Incentive Program for states to help private landowners protect
imperiled species while engaging in traditional land use or working land
conservation practices.
Private Stewardship Grants * The budget proposes a $10,000,000 Private
Stewardship Grant Program to provide federal funding for private conserva-
tion initiatives.
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation FundThe Service requests
$54,694,000 for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund,
$50,000,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level but $31,694,000 above the Fis-
cal Year 2000 level. The proposed funding level would provide $21,000,000 to sup-
port Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition; $17,759,000 for Recovery Land
Acquisition grants to help implement approved species recovery plans; and
$6,650,000 for HCP planning assistance to states. The Service will use $7,520,000
to provide conservation grants for habitat restoration, studies, surveys, and other
state activities supporting endangered species conservation.
The budget provides additional funding opportunities to protect species and habi-
tat by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million and
giving states the flexibility to use these funds to meet the purposes of the Coopera-
tive Endangered Species Conservation Fund.
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
The Service requests $14,912,000 for the North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund, $25,000,000 below the Fiscal Year 2001, but about the same as the Fiscal
Year 2000 enacted level. These funds are being redirected toward new state con-
servation initiatives in the budget. This Fund protects and restores wetland eco-
systems that serve as habitat and resting areas for migratory game and non-game
birds. The Fund supports non-regulatory private-public investments in the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. To date, nearly 1,500 partners have worked together on nearly
900 projects in 48 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, ten Canadian provinces, and 21
Mexican states to protect, restore and/or enhance almost seven million acres of wet-
lands and associated uplands in the U.S. and Canada and vital habitat on millions

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
40
of acres within Mexicos large biosphere reserves. This request is expected to
generate approximately $49,000,000 in total partner funds and resources and pro-
tect and enhance 409,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat.
The budget provides additional funding opportunities to protect species, habitat
and wetlands by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 mil-
lion and giving states the flexibility to use these funds to meet the purposes of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. Likewise, the existing Partners for
Fish and Wildlife program and two new grant programs, the $50 million Landowner
Incentive Program and the $10 million Private Stewardship Program, may also ful-
fill these purposes by protecting imperiled species and their habitats.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
The Service requests $3,243,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
the same as the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level, to provide technical and cost-shar-
ing grant assistance to African and Asian nations for conserving elephants, rhinoc-
eros, tigers, great apes, and their habitats. African elephants, Asian elephants, rhi-
noceros, tigers and great apes are endangered species protected from take and trade
by CITES and U.S. laws. This Fund provides successful, on-the-ground support to
range countries involved in elephant, rhinoceros, tiger and great ape conservation;
and, generates local matching resources from these countries.
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
The Service requests $11,414,000, the same as the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted level,
for payments to counties in which Service lands are located. This amount will be
augmented by an additional $197,000 in expected receipts from the sale of products,
other privileges, and leases for public accommodations or facilities on the refuges.
The Fiscal Year 2002 estimate for payments to counties is $15,682,000.
The Services estimates indicate that refuge visitors contribute more than
$400,000,000 to local economies each year. These benefits will continue to grow with
projected increases in visitation.
Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund
The Service proposes to discontinue this account in Fiscal Year 2002 and redirect
these funds toward other state and local conservation initiatives. The Presidents
Budget provides additional funding opportunities to protect species and habitat by
fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million and giving
states the flexibility to use these funds to meet the purposes of the Wildlife Con-
servation and Appreciation Fund. Likewise, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife pro-
gram and two new grant programs, the $50 million Landowner Incentive Program
and the $10 million Private Stewardship Program, may also fulfill these purposes
by protecting imperiled species and their habitats.
State Wildlife Grants Fund
The Service proposes to discontinue both the formula and competitive State Grant
programs in Fiscal Year 2002 and redirect these funds toward other state and local
conservation initiatives. The Presidents Budget provides additional funding oppor-
tunities to protect species and habitat by fully funding the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund at $900 million and giving states the flexibility to use these funds
to meet the purposes of the State Wildlife Grants Fund. Likewise, the existing Part-
ners for Fish and Wildlife program and two new grant programs, the $50 million
Landowner Incentive Program and the $10 million Private Stewardship Program,
may also fulfill these purposes by protecting imperiled species and their habitats.
Permanent AppropriationsIn Fiscal Year 2002, receipts into the Services per-
manent appropriations are projected to total $690,754,000, a combined $54,983,000
increase to Fiscal Year 2001 deposits, to the following accounts: National Wildlife
Refuge Fund, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, Cooperative Endan-
gered Species Conservation Fund, Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, Migra-
tory Bird Conservation Account, Sport Fish Restoration Account, Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Account, Miscellaneous Permanent Appropriations, and Con-
tributed Funds. The major changes are:
Sport Fish Restoration Account * An additional $50,355,000 in receipts
will become available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service due to antici-
pated increases in tax revenues and interest on invested tax collections. Tax
receipts and interest earned are available for obligation in the year fol-
lowing their deposit into the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Account * Tax receipts available in
Fiscal Year 2002 for Wildlife Restoration projects are expected to slightly
increase by $66,000 above Fiscal Year 2001 levels, and due to increased in-
terest rates, interest earned is estimated to increase by $2,000,000. Tax re-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
41
ceipts become available for obligation in the year following their deposit to
the U.S. Treasury, although interest earned in the current year is available
during the year in which it is earned.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you
may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.


The last couple of things that you talked about, the grant pro-
gram for land use and people who will continue to use the land in
a traditional way and receive grant dollars for habitat restoration
or habitat protection, those kinds of things, were they two pro-
grams you just described? Two grant programs?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. What were the names?
Mr. JONES. The first was a $50 million landowner incentive pro-
gram; the second, a $10 million private stewardship program. Both
programs are directed toward ways that we can work with land-
owners and communities to address the needs of the
Mr. GILCHREST. Those are existing programs in Fish and Wildlife
right now?
Mr. JONES. No, sir. Those are both new programs.
Mr. GILCHREST. That we will have to authorize? We would have
to authorize those programs?
Mr. JONES. That is correct. They would be authorized through
the appropriations process.
Mr. GILCHREST. We would not have to authorize that here in this
committee?
Mr. JONES. No, Mr. Chairman, because these programs are in-
cluded in the broad umbrella of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund request.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see.
Mr. JONES. But they, unlike the other part of Federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund, the part that we would use
Mr. GILCHREST. Well, Mr. Underwood said consternation.
[Laughter.]
This is something I would like to talk to you further aboutI
dont know if any other members have questionswhether we need
specific authorizing language from this committee or whether you
just go through the Appropriations Committee. It sounds inter-
esting, in the context that, between those two programs, it is about
$60 million before some effort to work with the private sector.
Just briefly, on the Delmarva peninsulaMaryland, Delaware,
Virginiawe have been working for about 2 years with a number
of people, including farmers; chambers of commerce; planning and
zoning committees; ag extension agents; and, to a lesser extent,
just conversations with the Department of Agriculture, Federal and
state; and the Department of Natural Resources; and, to some ex-
tent, Fish and Wildlife.
Without working through any existing structure or any existing
program, what we want to do on the Delmarva peninsula, we are
about ready to do some structural things, and $60 million pumped
into Delmarva, I dont know if that is a national program or a Del-
marva program
[Laughter.]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
42

At any rate, what we do with the Delmarva peninsula is keep its


rural character, help create a situation where agriculture will be
unique and profitable, and create a habitat conservation corridor
for wildlife through public land and private land.
So this program sounds like it may not be a significant part of
that, but certainly a piece of that. The director of Fish and Wildlife
for this region has also been attending some of the meetings, and
he has been very helpful.
While we are on the endangered species, can you give us some
idea of the rationale for the proposed cap and how the agency may
spend ESA listing funds to comply with the court orders for legal
settlements? What is the practical effect of the funding restriction?
Mr. JONES. I would be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman.
The cap itself is not new. We have had that included in our ap-
propriation for the last couple of years.
We first asked for the cap when it became clear that we were no
longer in control of the process of listing and designating critical
habitats because of litigation. And all of our resources were being
consumed with court-ordered actions or actions for which we had
settled with plaintiffs, where we knew that we had little chance of
winning in court.
And so the result was that we could foresee that not only our en-
tire listing budget might be consumed with these actions that were
the result of court orders of settlements, but in addition, if there
were no barrier, courts might begin to direct us to spend other
funds outside of the endangered species listing budget for these ac-
tions.
And so we could see, Mr. Chairman, kind of a black hole that
could consume all the resources that get near it. That could include
our very important resources for our consultation work, endangered
species candidate work, for recovery, and then, at least conceivably,
might even extend it beyond the Endangered Species Program into
other programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have any idea of the number of pending
court cases or the number of settlement agreements?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, we have those statistics. As I recall,
it is in the several dozens of pending actions that we have not yet
been able to resolve right now. We also have large backlog of peti-
tions that have not been addressed, of proposed rules that have not
been finalized.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, we have 22 cases right now that are
pending, in terms of critical habitat designation, and we have nine
other challenges to critical habitat designations that we have al-
ready made.
Mr. GILCHREST. Where are they? Are they mostly out west?
Mr. JONES. I would guess they are out west. But, Mr. Chairman,
they are not all out west by any means. A very recent decision
challenged our decision regarding critical habitat for the Gulf stur-
geon on the gulf coast. So, these could come up anywhere.
We have 38 other active listing lawsuits right now, ones that are
not pending, and 12 notices of intent to sue that are still within
the mandatory 60 day period before they can actually be taken to
court. And we have 82 notices of intent where the 60 day comment
period has expired, but they have not actually gone to either court

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
43

or settlement, and another 200 or so listing actions that have some


other kind of legal vulnerability.
Mr. GILCHREST. You proposed the cap because it is your sense
that other monies of Fish and Wildlife could be siphoned off to go
to lawsuits?
Mr. JONES. That is correct.
Mr. GILCHREST. There has to be some fix for the problem. Even-
tually, you have to deal with these lawsuits, I would guess.
Mr. JONES. And that is the other part of our proposal for this
year, and that is what is new. The concept of a cap is not new. It
has been in our appropriation for the last couple of years.
This year, we requested an increase for listing, so that the total
amount would go from a little over $6 million to a little over $8
million. We would like to continue the cap, so that
Mr. GILCHREST. What is the cap?
Mr. JONES. The cap would be that amount.
Mr. GILCHREST. The $8 million.
Mr. JONES. The $8.4 million.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you have asked for $8.4 million for listing,
but you have some idea that instead of listing species, that money
is going to be used for litigation.
Mr. JONES. As it stands now, Mr. Chairman, a significant part
of that $8.4 million already was committed to those court-ordered
actions and settlements we have already reached for next year.
Those things go on even in 2003, some of them.
But we are requesting $8.4, and we are also requesting a limit
that no more than that amount, $8.4, is going to be spent on all
the different aspects of listing. Now, that will include addressing
petitions for listings; it would include making the findings that are
required; it would included proposed or final rules to list species;
and it would also include critical habitat.
So under the broad category of listing, we would spend no more
than $8.4 million on all of those actions.
Mr. GILCHREST. But any idea of the number of species you have
not listed because of the lawsuits?
Mr. JONES. That have not been listed? Mr. Chairman, I am ad-
vised that we have 236 candidate species. Now, those species, some
of those may be subject to the lawsuits that I mentioned.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see.
Mr. JONES. We have a number of outstanding notices. Others are
not. Those are the species that we believe are ones that likely
should be listed, but we have not been able to get to because we
dont have all the resources that are necessary to address all of
them in any given year.
But, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the cap, we ask for something
else in the Fiscal Year 2002 proposal, and this is something new.
We have asked that there also be some congressional guidance for
us on how we should be spending that $8.4 million. And we asked
for an endorsement of concepts that we proposed, so we suggested
to Congress the guidance that we believe would be most helpful.
That guidance would say that our expenditures of the $8.4 million
in Fiscal Year 2002 would go for two things.
The first would be for those court-ordered actions and settlement
agreements we have already made. We made a deal with people;

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
44

we do not believe there is any way we could go back on those


agreements that we have already made.
But for the remainder of funds that are not yet committed, we
are asking for an endorsement of the concept of a listing priority
system, a system that we would develop this summer. We would
propose it for public comment. We would work with this committee
and the Congress and any others who are interested as we develop
this so that we would have this priority system in place for next
fiscal year.
And then we would be guided in all of our listing actions by that
priority system.
Mr. GILCHREST. You feel that that priority system would reduce
significant lawsuits?
Mr. JONES. We hope so. It would not eliminate in any way the
citizen suit provision that is already in the Endangered Species
Act, so we still could be sued. But we would feel that as long as
we were acting in good faith, following that priority system, and
were to work on those actions which were determined through the
application of that system to be the highest priorities, we would be-
lieve that we were operating with guidance from Congress. And we
would believe that it would unlikely, then, that courts would tell
us to do something else.
Mr. GILCHREST. If you were acting with the guidance of Con-
gress, you would feel much more secure
[Laughter.]
I am out of my time. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
I yield to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You certainly would be, perhaps, one of most litigated agencies
in the government.
I have to say that it is kind of a novel approach that you are pur-
suing here, with the capping of the money for listing issues. And
I just wanted to ask: It is my understanding that the ESA listing
language that you have requested will only restrict citizen suits
seeking to have species listed as endangered or threatened, that it
wouldnt restrict lawsuits to have a species down-listed, for exam-
ple, from endangered to threatened or removed from the list alto-
gether. Is that correct? And what is the rationale behind that?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Underwood, that is a very good question. We
fund the down-listing and delisting out of our recovery program not
from this.
We wish we had a big backlog of species ready to be delisted. We
want to put more emphasis on recovery in the future so that we
will have more species that can be delisted. But we dont have any
contention there, in terms of a backlog of litigation. And the money
that would fund that activity is a different source.
And one of the reasons we asked for the cap certainly would be
to make sure that the resources which we would need for under-
taking down-listing and delisting activities wouldnt be tied up in
court orders. So that wall protects those funds as well as all the
other endangered species activities.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. On the funding for the state conservation grant
programs, it seems to me that what you have done by submitting
this request for $450 million for the state Land and Water

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
45

Conservation Fund is, in reality, shifted some funds from other


programs.
What is the rationale behind that? And what is the net effect on
these programs? It seems to be a major policy shift.
Mr. JONES. I think that is true. This was reflective of the desire
of the administration to give the states and territories more control
over how the funds would be spent.
Let me start with a little background. The program for this cur-
rent year, which funds outdoor recreation activities and urban
parks and other things that are administered by the National Park
Service, I believe is funded at about $90 million. So this would add
another $360 million or so to that.
These funds would be available for additional wildlife purposes.
This would include work that would benefit endangered species
and candidate species. It would include work that would be con-
sistent with the wetlands conservation goals of the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act. And it would also include those
projects and programs that were consistent with the new wildlife
conservation and restoration program, which was in this years
budget.
That is an example; that $50 million new program is not in-
cluded in the Presidents budget for next year. Instead, there is this
larger program. But the states would have choice on how they
would use their allocation of funds. The funds are apportioned to
each state by a formula; part of it is a equal amount, part of it is
an amount that reflects the population and the land area of the
state or territory.
And then within that, they would have full choice. Each state
could decide, and a state might decide to use its entire allocation
for wildlife purposes or its entire allocation for parks purposes or
anything in between.
And the Chairman mentioned the work in the Delmarva penin-
sula. That would be something that the states of Delaware, Mary-
land, and Virginia each could determine whether they felt there
were projects there that were worthy of being funded under this
program.
But the state would be the one to make the decision about how
the funds would be applied. They would submit grant proposals
that would be reviewed. The National Park Service would admin-
ister this program, but in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service. And we, in turn, will be working with states and terri-
tories to develop further the details of how that would be adminis-
tered, so that we would have a new, cooperative program.
And I think it does reflect a new philosophy, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. In general, I would support that philosophy.
But it seems to me that we are going at this without a lot of atten-
tion to making sure that the money would be spent for the kinds
of purposes that Congress has outlined in the past.
Like so many of the other things that we are talking about here,
we are wondering whether this needs some kind of clarity in the
legislative language, in the authorization of these activities.
Certainly, I am one that has always been supportive of trying to
not only create opportunities for local communities to have more
input into the operations of the Federal Government in their area,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
46

but more participation in rulemaking. But it seems to me that this


a major shift.
Lastly, I just want to one specific question, and it goes back to
the invasive species.
And I have other questions, if we have another round, Mr. Chair-
man.
On the invasive species question, you know, it is kind of an old
song with me. Certainly one of the things that is most disturbing
is that I cant see any money that is being spent by Fish and Wild-
life to deal specifically with the brown tree snake, other than sup-
porting the Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Much of the money that is
spent on actually controlling or trying to deal with the irradication
of this invasive species comes from other units.
Would you like to explain to me the rationale of that? Perhaps
I will be pleasantly surprised, Mr. Jones.
[Laughter.]
Mr. JONES. Well, Mr. Underwood, we do have some expenditures.
You are correct that we dont spend what we used to spend.
At one time, the entire program for brown tree snake control was
part of the research division of the Fish and Wildlife Service. When
the previous administration made the decision that the research di-
vision would go out of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and eventually
became part of the U.S. Geological Survey, all the funding that
went with that program went with it. We had no funding left for
that program. And we relied on them to do research on control
mechanisms.
On the other hand, we are looking to find ways that we can be
a good neighbor and a good partner with Guam, with the Air Force.
And we are now exploring Federal money to provide matching
funds for the brown tree snake trapping that is going on at the mu-
nitions storage area on the Andersen Air Force Base, matching
funds that the Air Force has put forward and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, which also has a role here, has put forward.
We will seek other ways through the budget, both for the refuge
division and through the budget for our ecological services activi-
ties, so that we can be a partner and participate. But it would be
misleading for me to say that we could ever invest the same kinds
of funds that we had at one time, since the bulk of that program,
the funding for it, was transferred to another agency.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Pombo?
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In regard to the new programs that are being created under this
budget, Mr. Chairman, it has been the position of the committee
in the past that new programs would need to be authorized by the
committee. And I would hope that you, as the new Chairman of the
Subcommittee, and Mr. Hansen, as the Chairman of the full com-
mittee, would use the ability of this committee to authorize those
programs by the committee and not allow the appropriation process
to authorize new programs.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Pombo, you can be assured that while we
have great respect for the appropriators, we will look at this

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
47

particular issue. And I assure the members of the committee, it


will be authorized by this committee first.
Mr. POMBO. I appreciate that.
Mr. Jones, in response to the question of how many species were
not listed as a result of the legal challenges or the lawsuits, you
gave the number as to the number of candidate species that are out
there.
And I guess, in an effort to be fair, no one really knows how
many species were not listed, because those species are candidate
species because the science has not yet been done to determine
whether or not they are endangered. And it could be a number of
those may ultimately be listed as endangered species, but until
Fish and Wildlife Service is allowed to actually do the science that
is necessary to determine whether or not they are endangered, I
dont think anybody really knows yet how many species there are.
Mr. JONES. I would agree with that in the sense that these are
species that we believe right now, based on the information at
hand, likely qualify.
But you are certainly right. Before they would ever be added to
the list, there would be additional study, there would be a proposed
rule, public comment. And we cant presume to say right now how
many of them would wind up finally being added to the list.
But these are the ones that we believe are the best candidates
right now.
Mr. POMBO. Along those lines, can you tell me how much money
the Federal Government spent on those lawsuits? And how much
of that went to the litigants to pay for their legal expenses?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Pombo, I do not have that figure. The Depart-
ment of Justice pays for the litigation expenses for plaintiffs in
many of these cases. And so, in terms of payments to attorneys for
plaintiffs, that would have to come from the Department of Justice.
I suspect it would be a big number. I suspect it would be a num-
ber that all of us might feel, in an ideal world, ought to be used
for things other than just paying legal fees. That is the situation
we are in.
Then there would be our own costs, both our attorneys and our
staff, who are involved on their side. And we would be pleased to
get you some information for the record, but I dont have statistics
with me today.
Mr. POMBO. I would appreciate it if you could get me the number
as to how much money has been spent by the Federal Government
as a whole, not just Fish and Wildlife Service, and, out of that, how
much has gone to the plaintiffs in those cases, both in their attor-
neys fees and in settlements that may have come as a result of any
of those cases.
On the different requests that are being put forward, and I un-
derstand that you are trying to make an effort to limit the amount
of money that would be spent in those particular lawsuits and to
use as much money as we possibly can for its intended purpose,
and you have outlined for us here this morning somewhat of a re-
quest that we put guidelines on that.
Can you give the committee this morning an idea of what kinds
of things you are looking for in that particular request, as to how
the money would be spent? Are you looking for specific line items

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
48

coming out of Congress, saying we want this money broken down


in this way?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Pombo, we have not asked for it to be divided
up any more specifically than $8.4 million as a maximum. What we
have asked for, we provided suggested language, which I assume
could be included a report to us that would accompany the appro-
priations bill, that would endorse the concept of a listing priority
system, a system that we would develop, that we would propose
over the summer, that all Members of Congress as well as all the
interested partiesboth those who have been involved in suing us,
those who are affected by endangered species listings, and everyone
else, the general public, everyonewould have a chance to com-
ment on it.
And so everyone would see this before the time that the final ap-
propriations are done. Here is the priority system that we would
be working under. This priority system would address how you fac-
tor the best science into decisionmaking so that you have a bal-
anced program that results in the highest priority actions going
ahead first, and other actions will just have to wait their turn.
Since this was an appropriations issue, how to spend an amount
that we know wont be as much the courts may ask us to do, that
is why we put this forward in terms of appropriations guidance.
Mr. POMBO. I am very interested in how that is going to work.
I think it is probably a good idea to try to put something like that
together, but I am very interested to see how we proceed with that,
how that is going to actually come out. So I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Pombo, if I could just correct one thing? I think
I said language to be included in report, but I think what we pro-
pose is actually appropriations bill language rather than report
language.
But we would be pleased to work with you and all the other
members of the committee as we go through this process.
Mr. POMBO. Well, Mr. Chairman, if it is bill language and would
carry the force of lawwhich I think, in order to achieve what you
want, it would have to be bill language, to have the force of law
that is one area where I believe this Subcommittee and the full
committee ought to be very involved with, exactly how that lan-
guage comes out, because that is completely under the jurisdiction
of this committee and the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. GILCHREST. We will pay close attention to that as we move
through the process.
Thank you, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Ortiz?
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that I was able
to come back.
Mr. Jones, as the director, I know you are aware of recent ac-
tions on piping plover critical habitat designation. And I under-
stand that some think the economic impact assessment for the win-
tering habitat is inadequate, and you have had several months to
develop it.
This is going to be devastating. I would like you to look at the
impact of it.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
49

Now, what are your plans for completing this assessment on


1,600 miles of coastline? And I might suggest that working together
might be a lot easier than going through last 2 weeks again. For
2 straight weeks, I have tried to get a meeting with your office.
Maybe you all were working hard in changing the assessment.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Ortiz, I recognize that. It certainly has been very
difficult for us. I know that it was difficult for you.
On the advise of our legal counsel, Fish and Wildlife Service re-
fused all requests for meetings that would take place because the
comment period was closed, and because we were not allowed,
under ex parte rules, to be able to consider any new information.
Ultimately, we made the decision. However, we also were not
ready to adopt this as a final critical habitat designation.
I will note that this is one that we are here where we are be-
cause of litigation that resulted in our making an agreement that
we would publish this final critical habitat designation by April 30.
It wasnt in our plans at the time the litigation came about; we
werent ready to do that.
But as a result of the litigation, and the situation we are in,
where we felt we had, as a result of previous court decisions, we
were very unlikely to be able to prevail in court, we entered into
the settlement. Thus, we have our staff working under extremely
difficult conditions.
As you noted, Mr. Ortiz, this is a very complicated issue. There
is a lot of coastline. We are talking about the wintering habitat, in
particular for the piping plover, that stretches from the Carolinas
all the way around to Texas.
Lots of information, biological information, that we had to assess.
And in addition, we contracted for an economic analysis.
The economic analysis, the first version of it, required revision.
We sent it back to the contractor. We only received the economic
analysis with those revisions 1 week before the April 30 deadline,
and that was not enough time for us to be able to make the ration-
al decision we need to make.
The Endangered Species Act does include provisions under Sec-
tion 4(b)(2). It says we should include areas of critical habitat un-
less the benefits of excluding those areas outweigh the benefits of
including those areas. And we still need more time to go through
that analysis and decide if there are areas that would meet that
test and should be excluded.
I cannot say what the results of that evaluation will be. I can say
that we sent to the Federal Register a notice that we need an addi-
tional time period of up to 60 days to complete this review. We
have also notified the judge in this case. And the actions from here
will depend partly on what the judge decides.
But lets assume the judge and the court doesnt do something
which changes the course that we are on now. Over the next 60
daysso through the months of May and Junewe would be re-
viewing the biological data and the economic analysis that we have.
But we have said, in order to make sure that we dont run afoul
further of the court, that we will do this based on the existing
record.
Now, we know, Mr. Ortiz, you have constituents who have con-
cerns. We believe that those concerns are on our record. We have

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
50

a lot of material, including quite a bit of material, I know, from


constituents in your district, as there are from a number of other
Members of Congress.
Everything that is on that record will be reviewed and will be
part of this decision. We are not in a position to entertain new in-
formation. And so we are still going to be operating under ex parte
rules. Otherwise, I think we would be in some real legal difficul-
ties.
So our attorneys have advised us, we have to keep this process
one where we are doing it internally, but we are going to use every
bit of information that people provided to us, in making those deci-
sions.
Mr. ORTIZ. I guess your agency understands the impact that this
going to have. Maybe you can tell me, how are you going to be able
to complete this in 60 days?
Mr. JONES. It is going to be a challenge for us. We certainly do
recognize the concerns that are out there. And we will be taking
those concerns into account as we go through this process, working
within the structure of the law to decide what the final critical
habitat should be.
Mr. ORTIZ. I wish you had a plan on how you are going to do this
in 60 days.
Mr. JONES. It is going to take some concentrated effort by our
staff to do that, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. ORTIZ. I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
It is my understanding that the Kemps ridley sea turtle popu-
lation is doing better these days. I think that most of us are aware
that the shrimping industry has had problems. In Mexico, they
were harvesting the eggs and reducing turtle populations. At one
time I think the service was giving them $200,000 to be sure that
the population of the Kemps ridley turtle was increased. All of a
sudden, it was stopped. Am I correct?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Ortiz, I dont think it has been stopped. I think
it has been reduced due to other competing priorities. But we still
have an active program working with the government of Mexico to
help them provide protection for Mexican nesting beaches.
Mr. ORTIZ. So you are still doing that now?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. ORTIZ. What is the amount that it was reduced to, from
$200,000.
Mr. JONES. I believe it was cut about in half, but let me consult
here.
Mr. Ortiz, we will have to get you an answer for the record. But
I have had discussions with our regional director in Albuquerque
about this program to make sure that this is one that doesnt get
cut unduly because we have other priorities and a limited budget.
But I think it has been cut about in half, maybe $90,000 to
$100,000, somewhere in that range.
But we still have people actively working with the government
of Mexico and with private organizations. And I think they have
done a marvelous job.
And we hope that, in the future, they will be able to take on an
increasing share of this program, and then maybe we can shift

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
51

other resources to other places. But we will never walk away from
this program, Mr. Ortiz.
Mr. ORTIZ. I just want to put in the record, Mr. Chairman, that
the shrimping industry has done a great job. There has been real
progress in working together, and I just want to make sure that
this is included in the record.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
I think we have time for another round of questions, if the wit-
nesses dont mind.
Mr. JONES. We are at your disposal.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Jones, getting back to the issue of invasive
species, your agency has requested $2.7 million for invasive species
problems. Does the agency have any ballpark estimate as to the
damage, ecologically or economically, that invasive species have
done around the country or specific refuges or looking at the brown
tree snake or looking at nutria, comparing the ecological damage
and the economic damage to the amount of money that Fish and
Wildlife is putting forward to solve the problem?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I dont have a number here. We would
be happy to see what kind of number we can provide for you. Obvi-
ously, this is a much bigger issue than just the Fish and Wildlife
Service. It involves all of us who are involved in conservation with-
in the Federal Government, the states, private interests. When you
look at
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have some idea? It is a pretty com-
plicated issue, but do you have any idea as to the estimated costs
of the number of projects recognized by the agency?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, in our budget proposal, we have an
estimate of about $123 billion as the cost to the nation for aquatic
invasive species.
Mr. GILCHREST. What is that figure?
Mr. JONES. $123 billion.
Mr. GILCHREST. $123 billion.
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is that economic costs?
Mr. JONES. Economic costs; that is, the losses to regional and
local economies as a result of invasive species, the costs of inter-
ference with operations
Mr. GILCHREST. That is
Mr. JONES. The zebra mussels that clog the intakes for power
plants, and the costs of fighting the species and everything else
with it.
Now, that is not specific, Mr. Chairman, to refuges. And that
doesnt count nonaquatic. So it wouldnt count invasive beetles in
trees or something like that.
Mr. GILCHREST. Or snakes.
Mr. JONES. Or snakes. Exactly.
Mr. Chairman, I am advised, though, in our refuge operations
needs system, our database for future operating priorities for the
refuge system, there is about $140 million in invasive-species-re-
lated projects. So those would be priority projects that we
identified
Mr. GILCHREST. Priority projects, $147 million.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
52

Mr. JONES. No, sir. This is in our needs.


Mr. GILCHREST. That is the backlog.
Mr. JONES. That is the backlog of our
Mr. GILCHREST. $140 million backlog
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. for just refuge specific; billions of dollars of
economic damage nationwide.
The Invasive Species CouncilI think I have the name of that
correcta couple of years ago
Mr. JONES. Right.
Mr. GILCHREST. Are they still out there?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, they are. The Invasive Species Coun-
cil was established by an executive order in the previous adminis-
tration. I think the new administration will need to sort out exactly
how it wants to use the Invasive Species Council, but there is staff.
The staff is located in the Department of Interior, but it is a staff
that serves not just Interior, but serves the Department of Com-
merce, NOAA, the Department of Agriculture, consists of people
from several agencies. And they are actively working now on ideas
about how the new administration might continue to address
Mr. GILCHREST. Invasive species just has not been a high priority
for a lot of people?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an increasing priority.
Obviously, in the Department of Interior right now, our only Sen-
ate-confirmed appointee is the secretary. Though we have a nomi-
nee for the deputy secretary, we have others who are still not even
in the pipeline yet.
We in the Fish and Wildlife Service will certainly take every op-
portunity to educate all of the new appointees about the problems
that invasive species are causing fish and wildlife conservation.
And I think we will see the administration taking a hard look at
what to do nationwide.
It is an issue that affects everyone. It is bipartisan. The Federal
Government, the states, private industry, individual landowners,
everyone, has a stake in a strong national program to combat
and
Mr. GILCHREST. Everyone has a stake in a strong national pro-
gram, but you dont seem to be coordinating it out
Mr. JONES. The Invasive Species Council is an attempt to do
that.
Now, that builds on things that already existed, like aquatic nui-
sance task force that has been in existence for some time. It is very
active. Our assistant director for fisheries and habitat conservation,
Cathy Short, who is here today, is co-chair of that, along with a co-
chair from NOAA. And we have a lot of state partners in that,
other agencies.
So in the aquatics area, I think it is fair to say, Mr. Chairman,
the country recognized this. There was legislation by Congress sev-
eral years ago that authorized this, and we stepped out.
We are now coming to grips with the fact that we still need a
lot more than we have. And that is something that we
Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to work with you, to try to come up
with a program that will have the resources to make it work.
Mr. Underwood?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
53

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. I certainly want to associate myself


with those remarks and concern about the invasive species.
You gave, Mr. Jones, a dollar amount related to aquatic invasive
species. I dont know if you have a dollar related to beetles and
snakes on land. And if there isnt, is there a way to come up with
such a figure?
Mr. JONES. We certainly can provide you with a figure. In our
budget, I think we have a total, right now, of about $9.5 million
that will be oriented toward invasive species nationwide.
That includes a little under $2.7 million that Mr. Gudes men-
tioned for the refuge system. It includes about $4.5 million for our
Fish and Wildlife management assistance office for the branch of
invasive species which works on the aquatic nuisance task force
and other things. It includes a little under $2 million in our part-
ners for fish and wildlife program, private landowners with
invasive species issues. And it includes about $200,000 for our
international work, to work with other countries. So that is about
$9.5 million total.
Again, brown tree snakes, there was an additional amount which
previously was in our budget but now would be in the budget of
the U.S. Geological Surveys biological resources division.
But in addition, we want to be a good partner. We want to work
with the government of Guam. We want to work with the Air Force
and others, and make sure that we do everything that we can to
control brown tree snakes on Guam and prevent them from show-
ing up anywhere else.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It seems like the only way we can get attention
is to have a dead snake show up on the tarmac in Honolulu. Then
you get lots of it. [Laughter.]
But you get more for a live one. [Laughter.]
Okay, I want to ask you a question on the North American Wet-
lands Conservation Act. This is one of those activities that received
a $25 million decrease from the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation.
And I would assume that this is part of the money that ended up
in the LWCF.
My understanding of this program is that a good chunk of this
money is done on a matching basis. And, in fact, it has been able
to leverage a 3-to-1 basis so that, over the years since NAWCFs
inception, over $1 billion has been generated from nonfederal part-
ners. A $25 million cut, under the same understanding, would
mean, basically, $75 million is not going into these activities from
nonfederal resources.
It just doesnt seem to make a lot of sense when you have some
programs that are designed to in fact generate the kinds of part-
nership across the country which would bring money into conserva-
tion activities, and now we are finding ways to actually reduce
those grant programs.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Underwood, there is no question that the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund has been one of our most
successful program, and it certainly enjoys wide support.
The funding level that we have requested for Fiscal Year 2002
basically is what we requested in Fiscal Year 2000, which is $15
million. In 2001, we had a substantial increase for it. We returned

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
54

it, in our proposal, back to the Fiscal Year 2000 level of $15 mil-
lion.
But what we have that we hope will enable states to perhaps in-
vest an even larger amount is the stateside Land and Water Con-
servation Fund. And the administrations proposal is that this
fund, the stateside program, be amended to include the projects
which would be consistent with the North American Wetlands Con-
servation Act.
We cant give a fixed dollar amount, because that would be up
to states and territories to decide how much of the total amount
available to each one of them they would actually choose to orient
in this direction. But it is a total of $450 million altogether that
would be available. And this would be one of the purposes that
those funds could be
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand the logic behind that. But in this
particular instance, this is an example of a very popular program,
a program widely supported in Congress, a program that is basi-
cally accountable, that we know where the funds are going and
have a good sense of national direction. And in this particular in-
stance, I think we are sacrificing some of that.
I understand the logic behind what you are outlining, and I un-
derstand the logic behind the proposal. But I just think that it is
probably not a good idea at this time, certainly in reference to the
Wetlands Conservation Act.
I just wanted to ask a quick question on Marine Sanctuary Pro-
gram. In the National Marine Sanctuary system, NOAA has re-
quested an increase of approximately $3.6 million over last years
appropriation. Has NOAA used this? And will NOAA be using this
and other recent increases in funding to achieve its goal of estab-
lishing minimum management capability at all the existing na-
tional marine sanctuaries?
Ms. DAVIDSON. Congressman, we believe that the proposed in-
crease would get about 70 percent of the sanctuaries up to what
we consider the baseline operational level by year 2002, with 100
percent to be achieved by 2006, if the year 2002 numbers were to
continue until that time.
I do have to point out, though, that would not take into account
operations of a sanctuary program in the northwestern Hawaiian
islands. And the process of the designation of that as a sanctuary
has not yet quite begun.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. So none of this includes funding to support the
designation process in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands?
Ms. DAVIDSON. We actually had some separate appropriations to
support the process of establishing the coral reef ecosystem reserve
there, and to begin the process of the sanctuary designation. You
might recall, perhaps, from your own experience, it actually takes
several years to go through the designation process.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. How much funding will be spent on sanc-
tuaries system-wide?
Ms. DAVIDSON. Excuse me, Congressman?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. How much funding will be spent on sanc-
tuaries system-wide, as opposed to just individual sanctuaries?
Ms. DAVIDSON. Well, there are funds within the proposed in-
crease that not only address individual site requirements,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
55

management capabilities, such as official enforcement officers. But


it also addresses system-wide concerns, such as the issue of review-
ing management plans, which we have begun, for instance, on the
California coast, and hope to complete throughout the sanctuary
system over the next few years.
So there are system-wide increases accounted for in that request,
sir.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, thank you.
If I could just ask one more question on backlogs, back to Fish
and Wildlife. I remember in the previous year, you had a chart, a
very interesting chart that defined the decline of backlogs, the de-
cline of the rate of increase.
[Laughter.]
It is going to be a long time before I forget that chart. [Laughter.]
Now, under the budget proposal that you have, we are actually,
probably, going to increase that rate of increase, are we not? Or is
that decline of the rate of increase going to continue?
It is your chart, so that is why I am asking
[Laughter.]
Mr. JONES. Mr. Underwood, I am glad that chart was so memo-
rable.
The fact is that we are continuing to decrease that rate of in-
crease. In other words, we are kind of flattening it out. We are
doing our best to keep pace, but we also kind of have a large docu-
mented backlog.
We do believe that the Presidents budget proposal for Fiscal
Year 2002, which puts an emphasis on our maintenance backlog
with a $10 million increase for that, will continue to make a con-
tribution in the right direction.
We have identified in our refuge operating needs system the full
scale of the priority projects which are backlogged, and it is for op-
erating projects, and it is considerable. Maintenance, we also have
a big backlog of deferred maintenance, but we are continuing to
chip away at it.
And we look forward over the next few years to working with
this committee and with our new National Wildlife Refuge centen-
nial commission, which the Secretary will be announcing soon, and
the activities that lead up to the refuge centennial in 2003, to con-
tinue to think about ways that we can address the needs of the Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge System in the right context.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I wont forget that chart. I am also not going
to forget Scott Gudess nonhypothesis research.
[Laughter.]
Nonhypothesis research; that is, you just go in the ocean and
whatever you find
[Laughter.]
And that is how you go do research? I didnt get exactly what
was going on with nonhypothesis research.
Look, we have a taker.
[Laughter.]
Ms. KOCH. The purpose of
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you use a microphone, please?
Ms. KOCH. Im sorry.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
56

I am Louisa Koch, deputy director for the NOAA research pro-


gram in which the ocean exploration program resides.
The concept of nonhypothesis-driven exploration came out of the
commission. It was to respect the fact that, for example, NSF has
specific scientific hypotheses for their going out, and NOAA does,
as wellto look at coral species and the health of them and what
we think the factors are in continued health.
As to exploration, we were trying to differentiate exploring a
deep trench for the sake of going there, where no one has ever been
before, being able to go into depths where we never
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It sounds like a good TV program.
Ms. KOCH. Excuse me?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It sounds like a good TV program.
[Laughter.]
Ms. KOCH. Exactly. Exactly. We are hoping to get TV coverage.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. But I am glad to see that nonhypothesis re-
search was validated by a commission.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
If I may just follow up on a very good question on nonhypothesis
research? I assume that is deep-ocean exploration. Is it your view
that when you go down there, there is some sense of the landscape?
There is some sense of what is there, so that we can connect that
in an ecological way to other regions of the ocean and then pursue
some specific hypothesis?
Ms. KOCH. Absolutely. In fact, one of the things that we have
seen is, when there is exploration into deep trenches, there is often
a follow-on activity, be it fishing or be it mineral exploration, where
there are specific commercial pursuits.
And one of the things that we want to do when we explore geo-
graphic areas of interest is to make sure that we fully understand
what is there, and understand the impact of what may be coming,
and can protect and provide a proper framework for whatever fol-
low-on endeavors there may be.
But certainly, there would be follow-on endeavors.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is that a collaborative effort with the Navy or
with anybody else?
Ms. KOCH. Navy and NSF and also other NOAA programs, and
also the National Geographic. We have a number of private sector
partners as well.
Mr. GILCHREST. Are there specific areas that are targeted for this
endeavor?
Ms. KOCH. We have target missions that we are pursuing both
in 2001 and in 2002, along the east and west coast.
Mr. GILCHREST. Marianas Trench, is that one?
Ms. KOCH. Marianas Trench, no.
[The above question was originally answered incorrectly and the
response was changed from yes to no during the editing proc-
ess.]
Mr. UNDERWOOD. We are relieved to hear that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. Where else?
Ms. KOCH. South Atlantic Bight

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
57

Ms. DAVIDSON. From Belize through the Keys, following the Gulf
Stream, and then beginning in the Hudson Canyon this year and
following the Hudson Canyon down through the mid-Atlantic re-
gion.
Mr. GILCHREST. And each of those, what you just described, is
still in the stage of a nonhypothesis exploration?
Ms. DAVIDSON. To go where no man has gone before.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. No one has gone with nonhypothesis exploration.
But moving through the stages: So you are down there not with
any particular, specific hypothesis or theory, but you will evaluate
that after you are there.
While you are down there, is there any sense of studying con-
tinuing motion current, the potential for disruption for ocean cur-
rent, its impact on the weather, those kinds of things?
Ms. KOCH. Absolutely. One of the areas that we are currently ex-
ploring and have been for a long time is the vents region off the
west coast. One of the things that we looked at there is what is
the contribution to warming of the ocean to ocean currents from
those ocean vents. That kind of exploration topic would certainly be
relevant to what we are continuing to do.
The purpose of going into deep trenches where we have never
been before is to understand what is there and, therefore, to be
able to develop hypotheses for reasons to go back, again, with our
partners.
Mr. GILCHREST. The Navys collaboration with you, is that pure
science, pure nonhypothesis perspective? Is that partly science,
partly understanding for defensive maneuvers or training or hiding
a submarine somewhere or whatever?
Ms. KOCH. One area that we plan to pursue is ocean acoustics,
and clearly the Navy has extremely sophisticated technologies that
we will want to take advantage of, for example, as you mentioned
earlier, the SOSUS array. So we will be building on the Navys
acoustical understanding when we try to explore further ocean
acoustics.
In the oceans heritage, shipwrecks would be one area that we
would be interested in. Obviously, wherever it is a military ship-
wreck, they would be very interested in joining us for naval his-
tory, for example.
Mr. GILCHREST. How much money would this specific program
Ms. KOCH. There is a $4 million appropriation in this fiscal year,
and we are asking for an additional $10 million in 2002, for a total
program of $14 million.
Mr. GILCHREST. That is just NOAAs contribution to this? The
Navy adds another appropriation to this?
Ms. KOCH. The Navy does not have an appropriation explicitly
for ocean exploration. However, they have other funds for ocean
science, and we collaborate with them.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you very much.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Can I ask a follow-up?
Mr. GILCHREST. Certainly, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Koch, is it?
Ms. KOCH. Yes.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
58

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I know from the previous work, I remember


when we went to Monterey and the President had an unveiling of
national oceanographic efforts, that he had indicated that they
Navy had released lots of documents that had been previously clas-
sified. Is that correct? There is that level of cooperation with the
Navy?
Ms. KOCH. There is substantial cooperation with the Navy. And
in fact, I was just talking to the researchers that we have off the
west coast where they used the Navys acoustic array to find an
eruption that happened about 3 weeks ago. And they were actually
able to target the SOSUS array at the spot they were interested
in, in order to find out how much underwater turbulence there was.
So there is a high degree of cooperation there. Obviously, there
are some Navy programs that are so sensitive that that limits
the
Mr. UNDERWOOD. How does this increase-funded program differ
from the activities that are ongoing in NOPP and NURP?
Ms. KOCH. NURP is a very strong current partner. In fact, Bar-
bara Moore, the director of NURP, was a very key leader in bring-
ing this ocean exploration effort to fruition. And NURP is actually
going to be involved in leading the signature mission this year, so
they have a very strong and integral role.
We have not yet determined the role of NOPP in ocean explo-
ration. Clearly, NOPP is an excellent forum to bring NSF and Navy
and other agencies that are interested in ocean issues to the table.
We are exploring exactly how the relationship with NOPP would
work.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Something a little closer to home, and not as exciting, I guess,
Mr. Hogarth, could you comment on the ballast water program in
the Chesapeake Bay and the fact that it was zeroed out in Fiscal
Year 2002? I think your response is already noted.
[Laughter.]
Ms. KOCH. I am sorry, sir, but actually that program is within
NOAA research, and, therefore, Bill Hogarth is not to blame for
that.
[Laughter.]
It is an important program. We actually do have a $3 million
aquatic nuisance species effort within Sea Grant. We are very in-
terested in the Chesapeake Bay program, and it was crowded out
of the budget due to other priorities, but it is something that we
are very supportive of.
Mr. GILCHREST. The $800,000 was
Ms. KOCH. The $800,000 program was eliminated. There remains
a $3 million program within Sea Grant.
Mr. GILCHREST. So Sea Grant can pursue the ballast water
issue?
Ms. KOCH. Yes, Sea Grant can pursue the ballast water issue.
However, the $3 million is spread across the 29 Sea Grant pro-
grams, and, therefore, Chesapeake Bay would only be one target.
But it is a very important target for that effort.
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you tell us, of that $3 million, how much
might be spent for ballast water research in the Chesapeake Bay?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
59

Ms. KOCH. I will have to get back to you on that.


[NOAAs response follows:]
Sea Grants invasive species funds are distributed competitively and the final dis-
tribution of funds for FY 2001 and FY 2002 will not be determined until mid-sum-
mer. For reference, in FY 2000, about $263,000 of Sea Grant funds supported re-
search on the ballast water issue (including $150,000 awarded through the Small
Business Innovation Research Program). None of the funds went to the Chesapeake
Bay or for Ballast Water in Chesapeake Bay.

Ms. KOCH. But I can tell you, since that is a continuation of a


program ongoing in 2001, how much is being allocated to Mary-
land, to the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. GILCHREST. From Sea Grant?
Ms. KOCH. From Sea Grant, yes, sir, in addition to the $800,000,
obviously.
Mr. GILCHREST. Not too have you stand too much longer; I do
have a question for Bill.
Under your jurisdiction comes oyster disease? Is that something
you
Ms. KOCH. Yes, it does.
Mr. GILCHREST. Sea Grant?
Ms. KOCH. Yes, it does.
Mr. GILCHREST. I guess this would be a topic of another hearing.
But if I understand the nature of ballast water and MSX or dermo,
would you say there is or there absolutely isnt any connection
there?
Ms. KOCH. I am sorry that I dont
Mr. GILCHREST. I shouldnt ask absolutes of scientists.
[Laughter.]
Ms. KOCH. I dont have a good answer for you on that. I would
be happy to get back to you with a detailed response on the record.
[NOAAs response follows:]
NOAA has sponsored some research to look at transport of pathogens into Chesa-
peake Bay through ballast water, but this was a general look at pathogens, not spe-
cific to oyster pathogens. Recent findings have verified the presence of pathogens
in ballast tanks of some ships that have entered Chesapeake Bay, but the question
of whether or not the pathogens can survive long enough once they are released into
the Bay to have an impact has not yet been addressed.

Mr. GILCHREST. We would like to work with you to pursue, cer-


tainly, oyster disease but also the critical problems based on the
nature of the Chesapeake Bay and just the way it isballast
water, the lack of flushing, the problems of anoxia, the nature of
the inland port, the distance these ships travel. We would like to
work with Sea Grant and your office with finding what we can do
about ballast water.
Ms. KOCH. And we would very much like to work with you. It
is a major topic, coming out of the Great Lakes region, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay. It is all over the country, and it
is not something that we are adequately addressing now.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.
Bill, the $2.5 million for the Chesapeake Bay studies program
that has been requested, is that a total amount that would come
to Chesapeake Bay studies? That includes the Chesapeake Bay of-
fice?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
60

Dr. HOGARTH That is correct. Yes, sir.


Mr. GILCHREST. So it is $2.5 million for Chesapeake Bay studies.
That is the total amount coming to the Chesapeake Bay?
Dr. HOGARTH The FY 2002 request for Chesapeake Bay related
items is about $3.6 million for 2002.
Mr. GILCHREST. $3.6 million?
Dr. HOGARTH $3.6 million.
Mr. GILCHREST. We have this $2.5 million
Dr. HOGARTH The $2.5 million is for the office itself.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see.
Dr. HOGARTH And there is $3.6 million in total for fishery activi-
ties. There is $200,000 for marine education, programs at the Vir-
ginia Institute of Marine Sciences. For the first time, it includes
funding for species, including $500,00 for blue crabs and $850,000
for the Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery program.
Mr. GILCHREST. If you could sort of reemphasize from your posi-
tion, we will certainly do it from our position, the strong collabo-
rative effort with the private sector, the state and the Federal Gov-
ernment, and a great exchange of information on an ongoing basis
about the critical nature of ocean recovery and the problems with
oysters and blue crabs in the bay, both on the Virginian and our
side.
Ms. Davidson, the study level the 2002 budget request includes
the electronic navigation charts for less than 1 percent of the EEZ
that have been determined to be crucial for navigation. Is that an
acceptable percentage of the EEZ? And what is the status of that
study?
Ms. DAVIDSON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, this actually rep-
resents the first time that we have had a specific line in the Presi-
dents budget for electronic navigational charts (ENCs), so we are
really pleased with that.
At that rate, you are correct that it would take a while to com-
plete requirements. We are, actually, sitting down and working
with the Coast Guard and the Navy as well, to talk about how best
to implement that effort. In fact, we actually have started a test
pilot effort in the current year with about $250,000 to sort of get
us a little bit ahead in terms of our planning horizon, in terms of
collaborating with those agencies.
And we are also discussing with the Navy the data-management
requirements. The Navy is interested in us becoming more of a
data archive for not only our electronic navigational charts and
how we can get that information in real time to a bridge of a ves-
sel, but also how we make those kinds of data available in other
ways.
Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have some idea on the length of time it
would take to complete about 1 percent of the EEZ for that type
of charting?
Ms. DAVIDSON. I dont have that specific information. I can get
back to you with that. I believe the number is, with that level of
funding, that we will be able to actually convert about 60 to 70
charts to electronic navigational charts, with that rate of funding.
[NOAAs response follows:]
Responsible for over 3.4 million square nautical miles of the U.S. Exclusive Eco-
nomic Zone (EEZ), NOAA has prioritized the EEZ to maximize the efficiency of re-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
61
sources available for hydrographic survey data. Many areas portrayed on nautical
charts have never been adequately surveyed, and nearly half the depths on current
charts were acquired before 1940 using leadline techniques. NOAA has identified
approximately 550,000 square nautical miles as navigationally significant, which
are further prioritized by threat of hazard to surface navigation. The critical survey
backlog addresses the 43,000 square nautical miles, or approximately 1.3% of
NOAAs charting responsibility, considered most important to safe navigation. The
highest priority are those critical waterways that have high commercial traffic vol-
umes (cargo, fishing vessels, cruise ships, ferries, etc.), extensive petroleum or haz-
ardous material transport, compelling requests from users, and/or transiting vessels
with low underkeel clearance over the seafloor. Over half of the critical backlog area
exists in Alaskan waters. At current funding levels, it will take about 20 years to
eliminate the 43,000 square nautical miles critical survey backlog.

Mr. GILCHREST. So are there specific areas of the EEZ that you
are targeting first?
Ms. DAVIDSON. I would have to check with the folks in Coast
Survey. Our priorities would continue to be the major ports and the
approach channels.
We actually have a listing of the 200 ENCs that would be re-
quired to cover the 40 major port areas, but it does not identify for
me what the actual priority would be. But we do have them identi-
fied in terms of which ones we are trying to cover.
[NOAAs response follows:]
NOAA proposes to first provide coverage for the 40 major U.S. ports and harbors.
The fiscal year 2002 request for a $3.6 million increase will enable NOAA to en-
hance, build and maintain the suite of 200 ENCs needed for the 40 major ports and
harbors. These ports and harbors are listed below. The prioritization of the top 40
major U.S. ports and harbors for commercial navigation was determined by ana-
lyzing data ranking U.S. ports by cargo tonnage. This model includes major ports
of call visited by the cruise line industry, and coordinates with planned NOAA hy-
drographic surveying activity for the most current hydrographic data.
NOAA will build 65 new ENCs in fiscal year 2002, as well as enhance existing
ENCs, to complete the suite of 200. The ENCs will then be continually maintained
with new data and updates as part of NOAAs nautical charting database.
Below is the listing of the ports which have or are scheduled for ENCs. Please
note that one port name might cover a number of port cities. For example, Port Ev-
erglades in Florida includes Miami, Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale.
Baltimore Pascagoula
Boston Philadelphia
Brunswick Port Hueneme
Charleston Port of South Louisiana
Charlotte Amalie Port Everglades
Chicago Port of NY/NJ
Christiansted Portland, ME
Cleveland Portland, OR
Corpus Christi Richmond, VA
Detroit Richmond, CA
Duluth/Superior San Juan
Honolulu San Diego
Houston Savannah
Jacksonville Seattle
Lake Charles St. Clair
Long Beach Tampa
Lorain Toledo
Mobile Valdez
Nikiski Wilmington, NC
Norfolk

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 5904 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
62
The current estimate of full ENC coverage for U.S. waters, including specialized
charts NOAA now produces in paper format, is 1000. A total of 660 ENCs would
be required to provide minimum full contiguous coverage for U.S. waters, in order
to connect coastal waters between U.S. ports for safe navigation. These steps are
not included in the Presidents request for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. GILCHREST. Does charting 1 percent of the EEZ represent the


basic need? Will there be charting beyond the 1 percent once that
is completed?
Ms. DAVIDSON. We certainly would hope so. With an upgrade of
resources, we could of course accelerate the rate of conversion to
electronic nautical charts.
Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. I just have one last question. I am not
sure who from NOAA can answer it.
About a year or two or three ago, we worked with a number
countries from around the world with the intent to reduce the
slaughter of right whales. Can someone tell me what the status of
that is? Is it ongoing? Is it successful? Have we reduced the deaths
of right whales?
Dr. HOGARTH I know it has continued to work, but right whales
still have ways to go.
[NOAAs response follows:]
NOAA works through several international fora, bi-lateral cooperation (with Can-
ada), and ongoing research to help protect right whales. The following is a list of
recent and ongoing international activities by NOAA to protect right whales:
International Whaling Commission (IWC)
NOAA scientists serve on the International Whaling Commissions (IWC) Sci-
entific Committee (SC). The past US Commissioner was NOAAs Undersecretary for
Oceans. The SC develops and provides recommendations to the IWC which in turn
recommends protective measures for whales, globally. . Right whales have been a
primary focus of this group and recent actions are no exception. For example, work-
ing through this group, NOAA scientists helped expose illegal hunting of right
whales and data falsification by whalers from the former Soviet Union.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO)
NOAA works actively with the IMO, the primary international body regulating
shipping activities, to raise awareness of the international shipping community to
the plight of right whales.
The IMO receives regular updates on right whales from the US delegation (in-
cluding NOAA reps) at its annual and various committee meetings.
NOAA staff helped Canada submit a proposal to the IMO on ship routing meas-
ures in Canadian waters to reduce the risk of ship strikes.
Mandatory Ship Reporting System
In a collaborative effort by NOAA, the US Coast Guard, and Marine Mammal
Commission, the US submitted a proposal to the IMO to establish a Mandatory Ship
Reporting system in U.S. east coast waters to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes.
It was endorsed by the IMO. As planned, the system began operation in July 1999
and is functioning on a daily basis. The system affects all commercial vessels (over
300 gross tons) entering US ports, including foreign flag vessels.
Management Options for Reducing Ship Strikes
NOAA is studying various management options to reduce ship strikes and the
legal authority needed to implement them. NOAA is working closely with the ship-
ping industry, economists, and analysts to provide recommendations. The rec-
ommendations are due in September and will certainly affect foreign flag vessels
and will almost certainly include recommendations on increasing international mar-
iner awareness about right whales.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
63
Navigational Aids
NOAA provides information to regularly update publications by the National Im-
agery and Mapping Agency, Notice to Mariners and Sailing Directions, which are
essential documents for U.S. pilots entering foreign waters.
Collaboration with Canada
NOAA has regular bi-lateral meetings with Canada to facilitate collaboration on
right whale (and other marine mammal) protective measures. Such collaboration in-
cludes:
ensuring Canadian and US fishing gear restrictions are compatible, to the ex-
tent practicable, and collaboration on determining the types of fishing gear in-
volved in whale entanglements
right whale field studies in Canadian waters
NOAA staff provides supporting documentation, information, and expertise for
vessel traffic separation regimes and other measures taken in Canadian waters
to reduce ship strikes of right whales
NOAA scientists provide advice and expertise on permitting requirements for
scientific research in on right whales in Canadian waters
North Pacific Right Whales
NOAA scientists are currently engaged, with National Marine Fisheries Service
funding, to conduct boat and aircraft surveys throughout the Bering Sea to as-
sess abundance and distribution of North Pacific right whales. These studies in-
clude biopsy sampling (for genetic studies), individual photoidentification studies
(to study demographics, population size, and assess types and extent of human
impacts), and photogrammetry studies (to assess size distributions and assess
health).
NOAA scientists recently helped identify the existence of, helped quantify the
size of, and are working to reduce human impacts to, a North Pacific right
whale population found along the eastern North Pacific rim, in Russian and
Asian waters.
NOAA scientists recently published a paper on every known (historic) take or
death of a North Pacific right whale, including all known causes due to human
activities.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Bill.


My last comment, I guess, before I yield to Mr. Underwood.
About the piping plover, when I see Mr. Ortizjust for frame of
reference purposes, a neutral suggestion, for migrating shore birds,
would be to read the book Sea of Slaughter, by Farley Mowat.
Just for frame of reference on what we have left and what we need
to do.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, and thank you for this hearing,
again.
And I just wanted to ask one last question on fisheries research
and data collection, for Mr. Hogarth, and ask about managing fish-
eries based on all the insufficient data.
This year, the agency requested a $13 million increase for stock
assessment work. Is this amount sufficient to deal with the backlog
in stock assessments? What would be an amount that would be suf-
ficient?
Dr. HOGARTH I think this will get us to a point where we will
be able to respond to the level of stock assessments now sort of on
the back burner because we havent been able to do them.
If you look through the budget, there is also money for increased
surveys. And I think that total package is what we are looking at
to give us the increased data. The quality research of the industry
will help get improved data also. And the requested stock assess-
ment funding will enable us to hire some new stock assessment

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
64

people, some who need to look at ecosystem management, some


new thinking to look at modelling, to look at climatic conditions in
the ecosystem as a whole.
So this will be a continuing effort, and it is not just a one-time,
in my opinion, but it is a long-term, continuing level of funding
that we need.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do you have a dollar amount that would sat-
isfy the backlog?
Dr. HOGARTH I will think about it.
[NOAAs response follows:]
NOAA has two documents that define requirements for both expanding and im-
proving stock assessments and their underlying fisheries data collection programs.
The NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP) has projected the require-
ments to attain the goal of Tier Three stock assessments, which is a new term for
the next generation of ecosystem assessments requiring substantial new or ex-
panded data collection and research. There is a progression of improving the quality
and quantity of assessment advice from Tier One to Tier Three.
Tier One status, closest to being achieved if the Presidents fiscal year 2002 re-
quested increase of $13.3 million is funded, requires minimal new data collection.
Currently, 23 percent of the U.S. stocks included in the annual report to Congress
are being assessed at least at the Tier One level. With the requested increase in
days-at-sea and the addition of more staff to process samples, manage and quality
control data, and derive and interpret assessment models, we can mine existing
data resources and assess some of the unknown stocks, or more frequently assess
known stocks, using relatively basic single species models. Total costs for Tier One
are $15.5 million per year.
Tier Two would elevate all stocks to a nationally-acceptable minimum standard
of quality and frequency as identified by the regional councils and NMFS and con-
sistent with National Research Council recommendations, but requires substantial
amounts of new data in addition to more staff. Currently, 16 percent of U.S. stocks
are being assessed at least at the Tier Two level. Funding Tier Two completely
would achieve baseline monitoring for all federally-managed species, and upgrade
core fishery management plan species to annual assessments using aggregated stock
production models. Tier Two costs are estimated at $38 million per year.
Tier Three advances the state-of-the-art in stock assessment by incorporating
multi-species, environmental, and spatial data into seasonal ecosystem analyses.
Significant data and basic research investments are required to attain Tier Three
status. The long term goal upon completion of the SAIP is for all managed species
to have, at a minimum, a scientific application of a surplus production stock assess-
ment model (level 3, on a one to five scale), with all core species assessed at a high-
er level (4 or 5), which incorporates ecosystem and environmental parameters into
the models. An estimated $46 million would be needed to completely fund Tier
Threes approach. Tier Three is a long-term objective because considerable research
is required and new time series of consistent data collection must be initiated.
The different Tiers of stock assessment excellence provide useful benchmarks for
monitoring performance improvements in the scientific knowledge base upon which
management policies are developed. NOAAs strategy reflected in the fiscal year
2002 Presidents request is to seek a combination of Tier One and Tier Two improve-
ments to reflect the priority species of NMFS and the regional councils. This invest-
ment will improve NOAAs scientific and technology competencies to collect and
process the additional data into sound policy advice, and communicate it effectively
to managers and the industry.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Maybe some hypothesis-driven research.


[Laughter.]
Dr. HOGARTH One of the problems we have, to be honest with
you, is people. There are just not enough people coming out of the
universities to do stock assessments. So we are trying to work with
the universities to develop programs to get people trained in stock
assessment work. They are just not currently available and it is
hard to find.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
65

It is a total program, I think, of the modernization of the ships,


to get improved data collection, to get improved stock assessments,
social and economic data. It is all part of the big package to allow
us to be more responsive to the issues and better data collection.
Year 2001 started the process; 2002 will definitely continue it.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
I have one last question. Actually, two last yes or no questions
for Ms. Davidson from Mr. Young.
Mr. GILCHREST. Does NOAA intend to complete the site charac-
terization work on Pribilof Islands this year?
Ms. DAVIDSON. I think that we are intending to make substantial
headway on the site characterization.
As we explained in a recent briefing with some of Mr. Youngs
staff, we have almost fully characterized about 60 to 70 percent of
the known sites. It is a fairly complex activity, because you dont
always fully appreciate the extent of contamination until you get
in and begin to do the site characterization work. But it would be
our goal.
We just finished contracting with an outside company to review
our on-site characterization to date, and they generally concurred
with our conclusions to date and our estimates of likely require-
ments.
Mr. GILCHREST. That is a tentative yes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. DAVIDSON. Yes.
[Laughter.]
It is, but with the understanding that cleanup is a complex issue.
Mr. GILCHREST. A tentative yes with the understanding that it
is difficult.
With that in mindapparently there is a two-party agreement,
as far as the cost of all thiswhen will you have some idea of cost
for the final cleanup?
Ms. DAVIDSON. Of course, that relates to the answer to the first
question, Mr. Chairman.
So we hope, with this next season, which is now, I am told, No-
vember, that we not only have a better feeling for the extent of the
contamination as well as the complete cost requirements.
We would be happy to get back to you at the end of the current
season with the information.
Mr. GILCHREST. The end of the current season, that would be?
Ms. DAVIDSON. Well, cleanups can only really proceed from about
May to November in that particular geography. After that, there
are certain types of weather constraints.
Mr. GILCHREST. So you would like to wait until November to an-
swer this question?
Ms. DAVIDSON. Well, I think that would be appropriate. I could
probably more fully answer the question for you. You asked for a
tentative answer, and I presume you would like
Mr. GILCHREST. I didnt ask for a tentative answer. I think Mr.
Young wanted a
[Laughter.]
But I will pass along what you said.
Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you, sir.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
66

[NOAAs response follows:]


NOAA will make every effort to complete remaining site characterization field
work during the 2001 work season on the Pribilof Islands. Once necessary field work
is done, contractors will prepare reports of the results of their work, and then
NOAA will need to review and evaluate those reports, and develop either risk as-
sessments and/or corrective action plans for the newly characterized sites.
Once corrective action plans for all sites are available, NOAA will be able to de-
velop an overall estimate of the cost to complete the Pribilofs cleanup. Based on site
characterization and related work in past years, it is likely that NOAAs evaluation
of contractors reports, and preparation of corrective action plans, will take 48
months after the end of the field season, or until the late Spring of 2002.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Ms. Davidson.


Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attendance. Your testi-
mony was very useful for all of us, and we would like to continue
to work with you on these issues in the coming months.
Mr. GILCHREST. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - BUDGET HEARING MAY 3, 2001

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Question 1. What is the rationale for the proposed cap on how the agency
may spend ESA listing funds to comply with court orders or legal settle-
ments? What is the practical effect of this funding restriction?
Answer 1: The revised appropriations language continues a provision rec-
ommended by the previous Administration, and enacted by Congress in fiscal years
1998 through 2001, limiting the amount of the resource management account that
can be used for completing listings and critical habitat designations to the amount
intended to be provided by Congress, as identified in accompanying legislative re-
ports. That is, the effect of the language is to prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service
from reprogramming funds from other programs to the listing program. However,
because some Courts have concluded that they have little or no discretion to give
the Service relief from certain underlying mandatory deadlines in the ESA, even
when limited listing funds do not allow the Service to meet all of the ESA listing
requirements, the Presidents proposal also includes language clarifying that the
Service may expend its listing resources in fiscal year 2002 only to comply with ex-
isting court orders or according to a priority system developed by the Service. It is
our intention that the priority system be biologically based and issued only after
public review and comment.
The Service listing program has a substantial backlog of work that is needed to
meet statutory requirements. Because of this backlog, the Service needs a mecha-
nism to allow for the orderly management of the listing program that allows the
Service to address the species most in need. The Service also must be able to effi-
ciently plan its work for the year, without having to abruptly stop and start work
and shift resources from one Region to another in response to new court orders
throughout the year.
The proposed language would preclude the Service from spending funds to comply
with court orders to complete additional work in Fiscal Year 2002 as a result of past
failure to meet the required deadlines identified in the ESA. The vast majority of
deadlines we have missed, and the associated litigation, is related to our failure in
the past to designate critical habitat at the time we listed the species. However,
courts may find other appropriate remediesfor example, by ordering us to com-
plete a critical habitat determination in fiscal year 2003. Also, the proposed lan-
guage would not affect citizens rights to sue over the merits of any listing decision,
or the remedies available to Federal courts in such cases.
Question 2. On November 22, 2000, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service an-
nounced a listing freeze on threatened or endangered species because of
court order or settlement agreements. Please update the Subcommittee on
the number of pending court cases and settlement agreements?
Answer 2: The Service did not announce a listing freeze. We stated that we have
allocated all of our fiscal year 2001 funding to meet court-ordered deadlines and
there are no additional resources to spend this year on discretionary listing activi-
ties. Regretfully this notice was interpreted by some as a listing freeze.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
67
We currently have 78 active lawsuits. This includes 45 cases that we have not
yet settled or are awaiting a court ruling. The remaining 33 cases have had an ini-
tial ruling or settlement agreement, but either we are considering additional legal
recourse (e.g., an appeal), or we remain in litigation concerning the plaintiffs claim
for attorney fees.
Under an agreement announced August 28, 2001, with the Center for Biological
Diversity the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, and the California Native
Plant Society, the Service will issue final listing decisions for 14 species and propose
8 more species for listing. The Service will also be able to take action on four citizen
petitions to list species under the Act. The Service and the organizations have
agreed to extend deadlines for either other critical habitat designations, thereby
making funds available for these actions. This agreement was filed with the U.S.
District Court on September 28, 2001.
The species covered by the agreement face significant threats. For example, the
Service will consider emergency listing the Tumbling Creek cave snail, which de-
clined precipitously in the single cave in Missouri where it is found, and Columbia
Basin distinct population segment of pigmy rabbits in Washington, which has de-
clined to fewer that 50 individuals. The Service will also make final determinations
for the showy stickseed, the rarest plant in the State of Washington, with a single
population of fewer than 300 individuals; and the Mississippi gopher frog, which is
known from only one site in Harrison County, Mississippi.
Under the agreement, the deadlines for final critical habitat designations for five
species and proposed and final critical habitat designations for three others will be
extended into this fiscal year. The Service is using the funds that would have been
spent on these actions in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 to list new species, propose new
listings, work on other critical habitat designations, and respond to petitions.
Question 3. How many endangered species were not listed because of
lawsuits and court ordered settlements?
Answer 3: It is impossible to determine exactly how many species were not added
to the lists of endangered or threatened species as result of litigation. Unquestion-
ably, the need to address critical habitat designations required by court order and
settlement agreement have severely affected our ability to list species. For example,
just looking at our recent track record for fiscal year 1997 - fiscal year 2000, it is
clear that we typically listed many more species during that time frame than we
will in fiscal year 2001. Final listing determinations ranged from 157 species in fis-
cal year 1997 to 39 species in fiscal year 2000, with a median of 48 final listing de-
terminations per fiscal year. We completed 14 final listing determinations in fiscal
year 2001.
In addition, we presently have 236 species which we have placed on the can-
didate list, all of which we have determined may warrant listing. However, we have
been precluded from acting on these species due to the need to address the critical
habitat issue described above.
Question 4. How much money did the federal government spend in these
lawsuits and how much did the litigants receive for their legal efforts?
Answer 4: The Department of Justice estimates that the federal government has
paid approximately $1.25 million dollars in attorneys fees and costs since January
1995 for missed deadline cases and defending determinations that designation of
critical habitat was not prudent.
While we do not have readily available figures for the costs relating to defending
against these lawsuits, we budget approximately $800,000 in the listing program for
litigation support. It is important to note that it is not the costs litigation support
alone that is the primary problem for management of the endangered species listing
program. It is rather that the costs of complying with the various court orders and
attempting to meet the deadlines imposed by the courts have in recent years con-
sumed, and in some cases threatened to exceed, the funds appropriated for these
purposes.
Question 5. With the maintenance backlog at our National Wildlife Ref-
uge System now exceeding $830 million, how is an increase of only $8 mil-
lion going to make any real difference in reducing this staggering level?
Answer 5: All funding increases for maintenance projects help to address the
maintenance backlog and benefit the Refuge System. The Refuge System has
prioritized its maintenance needs in the DOI FiveYear Deferred Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Plan, which uses a standard scoring and ranking process
to identify highest priority maintenance needs for the budget year and the subse-
quent four years, with highest priority given to health and safety. Any increase in
Deferred Maintenance funding will complete high priority projects within that plan.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2002 budget request included an increase of $1.9 million

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
68
in annual maintenance funding for maintenance workers who will take care of small
cyclical maintenance needs and keep them from being added to the backlog.
The rate of increase of the maintenance backlog has been steadily slowing down
in recent years as a result of increases in both annual maintenance and deferred
maintenance funding. Refuge maintenance needs are also supported by the following
appropriations: Construction, Operations and Maintenance of Quarters, BLM
Wildland Fire Management, and Federal Aid - Highways.
Question 6. How much money is required for nutria eradication at the
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 1902?
Answer 6: The cost to continue research on nutria population control and ecology
at Blackwater NWR is $498,000, currently split between Refuges ($299K) and Eco-
logical Services ($199K). Since the program is conducted both on and off the refuge,
and involves other federal agencies, private landowners and the state, the Service
is working with these partners to identify other sources of funds to initiate moni-
toring nutria-associated tidal marsh and wetland damage, wetland restoration ex-
periments and outreach programs. This will adequately meet the highest objectives.
Question 7. What is the status of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Centennial Commission? When will the membership of this Commission be
announced?
Answer 7: On March 15, 2001, the Service sent a memorandum to the Secretary
of Interior with a listing of potential candidates for the commission. At this time,
the Secretary has made her appointments to the Commission, and we are in discus-
sion with the Congressional ex officio members as to the best time to announce
them. The charter for the commission has been prepared and is being reviewed
within the Department.
Question 8. How many new refuges will be created in 2001?
Answer 8: At the time the budget was submitted, we projected the creation of 11
new National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in Fiscal Year 2001. Eight were actually es-
tablished: Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, North and South Dakota; Assabet River
NWR, Massachusetts; Caddo Lake NWR, Texas; Oahu Forest NWR, Hawaii;
Vieques NWR, Puerto Rico; and Palmyra Atoll NWR and Kingman Reef NWR in
the Pacific.
Question 9. Why has the acquisition of 1,100 acres for the St. Marks NWR
in Florida merited the top of the Services LAPS list?
Answer 9: The Services Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS) for ranking
Land and Water Conservation Fund projects was first used in the preparation of
the Fiscal Year 1989 Budget Estimate. These criteria remained substantially un-
changed until 1998 when a major revision of the criteria was undertaken. The re-
vised criteria were first used in the development of the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Es-
timate and include four Components and a Project Summary. Each component can
have a maximum score of 200 points and the Project Summary an additional 50
points. The component questions are tied to Service trust responsibilities. The cri-
teria are used to rank the resources of the project as a whole, not just the lands
to be acquired. The overall score for St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, Florida was
683 points, the highest score of the 133 projects on the list. The average project
score for the 133 projects was 448.
The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Component addresses: (1) the status and
trends of aquatic populations; (2) species diversity for trust resources; (3) critical or
essential habitats including watersheds and free-flowing rivers; (4) wetland types
and trends status; and (5) wetland losses by percent of historic wetland base by
state. St. Marks NWR scored 147 points on this component; the average component
score was 110.
The Endangered and Threatened Species Component: (1) is recovery-oriented; (2)
considers habitat and biological community integrity as well as species occurrences;
and (3) focuses on actual habitat use. St. Marks NWR was one of 19 projects which
scored the maximum, 200 points, on this component.
The Bird Conservation Component consists of: (1) regionally-developed lists of 70
species of concern for each region, as well as Hawaii and Puerto Rico; (2) a popu-
lation importance index; and (3) an avian diversity index. Special emphasis is given
to Non-game Species of Management Concern and the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act Priority Waterfowl Species. St. Marks NWR scored 120 points on
this component; the average component score was 112.
The Ecosystem Conservation Component addresses: (1) bio-diversity through dis-
tribution and abundance of rare communities; (2) ecosystem decline and protection
of native diversity of threatened ecosystems: (3) landscape conservation by pre-
serving large, intact habitats through partnerships; and (4) contributions to national
plans and designations. St. Marks NWR scored 191 out of 200 possible points on
this component. Only three of the 133 projects scored higher.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
69
Question 10. I understand that a new visitors center is being built at the
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
What is the cost of constructing that facility? How much has been appro-
priated for that headquarters complex? (A total of $3.4 million in fiscal year
1900 and fiscal year 1901) How will the additional money be raised? Is the
public being asked to contribute and, if yes, is that a normal course of busi-
ness?
Answer 101: The estimated cost to construct the facility is $7,217,294, including
estimated private contributions of $1,950,000. Although the Service will complete
the project with available funds, other federal funds are being sought to provide for
other portions of the project.
Answer 102: Refer to the appropriation history provided below.

Answer 103: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is expected to contribute


$1,000,000 for construction of the complex. The remaining $950,000 in non-federal
funding is to be raised by local support groups, although these groups have not yet
been able to meet this target.
Answer 104: The public is being asked to contribute and this is not an unusual
practice. The remaining $950,000 in non-federal funding was to be raised by local
support groups. Activities in support of fish and wildlife conservation are funded
from unsolicited contributions to the Service from other governments, private orga-
nizations, and individuals. Donations for Visitor Centers are collected in special
projects within Contributed Funds. Congress has stipulated that the cost of new Vis-
itor Centers at sites such as Bear River NWR, Parker River NWR, and Chin-
coteague NWR will be split, with 50 percent of the public use portion of the project
coming from private groups and other contributions, and 50 percent from federal
funds.
Question 11. What is the cost to acquire the Kingman Island National
Wildlife Refuge lands? Isnt the Service being sued by Americans who be-
lieve they have a legal title to Kingman Island? What is the status of this
case and will this property be paid for with LWCF or Migratory Bird fund-
ing?
Answer 11: There was no cost to acquire the Kingman Reef National Wildlife Ref-
uge lands. The FWS was delegated administrative jurisdiction and control of King-
man Reef through the Secretary of the Interior on January 18, 2001. The Office of
Insular Affairs previously had administrative jurisdiction and control of the area.
A suit has been filed by the FullardLeo family against the FWS regarding their
alleged ownership of Kingman Reef. A pre-trial conference was held between the
magistrate and the attorneys on May 21, 2001, as the first step towards setting the
time schedule for the rest of the proceedings. More specific information was not
available as of the date of this report.
The United States Government has long held that Kingman Reef is federally-
owned property and thus there is no to purchase the property with either LWCF
nor Migratory Bird funds.
Question 12. The Presidents budget request included $6.705 million for
the highly successful National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This is some
$519,000 less than the Foundation received in the current fiscal year. Why
did the Foundation not receive at least level funding for fiscal year 1902?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
70
In your opinion, could the Foundation effectively use additional resources?
I am troubled by this request because of the fact that the Foundation
grows every federal dollar it receives by at least one and in most cases
three to one. It appears that this is the kind of program that we need to
fund more often and to the maximum extent possible. Do you agree?
Answer 12: The Administrations budget request focused on core operating pro-
grams within the Service and funded the NFWF at historic funding levels. The
Foundation has a proven track record of effectively leveraging Federal funding, and
could probably use additional resources . . . but so too could many of the core
Service programs. The budget request funds the highest priority Service needs.
Question 13. In fiscal year 1900, the Foundation received some $15 mil-
lion from the Department of the Interior and some $10.5 million from the
Fish and Wildlife Service alone. With all of the leveraging capability of the
Foundation, what did this figure grow to during that year?
Answer 13: In fiscal year 2000, the Foundation received approximately $10.5 mil-
lion through the FWS appropriation. These funds were matched by an additional
$25 million in non-federal contributions generated by both the Foundation and its
grantees, for a total conservation investment of $35.5 million. In general, for every
federal dollar appropriated to the Foundation through the FWS in fiscal year 2000,
$3.4 was invested in on-the-ground conservation.
Question 14. Why has the Administration not recommend either full fund-
ing or at least an increase for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
Answer 14: Units of local government receive annual payments from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to offset tax losses from the purchase of fee title lands in ac-
cordance with the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s). The Act requires
the Service to deposit net receipts into the National Wildlife Refuge Fund to make
annual payments to counties; if net receipts are not sufficient, the Service may re-
quest additional appropriations from Congress. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests
$11,414,000 in appropriations for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund to supplement
the estimated net receipts of $4,283,000 to make payments to counties and bor-
oughs. The fiscal year 2002 request balances Revenue Sharing needs with other
Service priorities within a limited budget.
However, the Service continues to provide other benefits to its county partners be-
sides the annual Revenue Sharing payment. Using a substantial share of refuge and
construction dollars for visitor services and facilities brings visitors to refuges and
thus increases economic benefits to the local communities. For example, those who
seek recreation on refuges (birdwatching, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.) also cir-
culate money into the local economies by staying in hotels, eating in restaurants,
and buying recreational supplies. Having Service lands in the area provides both
recreational and economic benefits to the local communities.
Question 15. The growth and expansion of invasive species is a growing
problem within our refuge system. I understand the backlog for invasive
species projects is at least $140 million. How much is being proposed for
the elimination of invasive species in fiscal year 1902?
Answer 15: The Service will continue to spend at least $3 million on invasive spe-
cies on national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2002. Invasive species pose a great
threat to habitats and wildlife not only on units of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-
tem, but throughout the nation.
Question 16. What is the status of the Invasive Species Council? Has the
Council met and have they issued any recommendations?
Answer 16: The National Invasive Species Council (Council) was established by
Executive Order 13112 to provide national leadership regarding invasive species.
The Council held its first meeting in July 1999. The specific focus of the Council
is to ensure that Federal agency activities concerning invasive species are coordi-
nated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective. The Council includes the Sec-
retary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Sec-
retary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Administrator of the Agency for International Development, and the Sec-
retary of Health and Human Services (the last 2 joined recently). The Council is Co
Chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Sec-
retary of Commerce. [The Council has met 3 times over the last two yearsthe most
recent meeting occurred January 2001. UPDATE]
The Executive Order called for the Council to produce and update biennially a Na-
tional Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan). The first edition of the Plan, enti-
tled Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge, was approved by the Council on Jan-
uary 18, 2001. It identifies nine priority areas for addressing invasive species prob-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
71
lems. It also recommends actions that the Council will undertake in coordination
and partnership with other stakeholders as appropriate.
The Executive Order also required the establishment of an Invasive Species Advi-
sory Committee which consists of qualified representatives from outside of the Fed-
eral government. Their role is to provide stakeholder input to help the Council
achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the Executive Order. The 32-member
Advisory Committee was established in 1999, and it held its first meeting in Janu-
ary 2000. The Advisory Committee has met 5 times and provided significant input
on the Plan and other Council initiatives.
Question 17. What is the current maintenance backlog at our National
Fish Hatchery System? How would you describe the general condition of
our hatcheries? For instance, how many hatcheries are older than 50 years
old, 40 years old, 30 years or 20 years?
Answer 17: The current maintenance backlog at our 87 National Fish Hatchery
System (NFHS) facilities consists of 1,341 projects totaling $280 million. This
amounts to 31% of the $890 million replacement value of our field facilities, a ratio
known as the Facility Condition Index. Ratios in excess of 10% indicate facilities in
poor condition. Half of the backlog projects involve the rehabilitation of critical
water supplies essential to fulfilling the stations mission. Effects on the NFHSs
mission are already being felt due to the deteriorating water supplies at our Na-
tional Fish Hatcheries, which average over 60 years old. Of the 70 National Fish
Hatcheries, 41 are over 50 years old, 14 are between the age of 40 and 50 years,
9 are between the age of 30 and 40 years, 2 are between the age of 20 and 30 years,
and only 4 are under 20 years old. Due to the aged and deteriorating state of water
delivery and control systems, incidents of fish losses (some involving listed species)
have occurred. Fortunately, the hatchery system received $4.0 million in Title VIII
maintenance in fiscal year 2001, to help meet some of these needs. And, the Service
continues to prioritize construction needs within available funding. For example,
$7.4 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and the Administration has re-
quested $6.6 million in fiscal year 2002 for hatchery construction requests.
Question 18. What is the rationale for cutting funding for hatchery main-
tenance by $5 million dollars?
Answer 18: The funding referred to in the question was pass-through funding that
Congress provided for fiscal year 2001 for the Washington State Hatchery Improve-
ment Project. The fiscal year 2002 budget request proposed to discontinue this pass-
through funding because of high priority needs within the Service. This funding was
used by the state hatchery system, the Long Live the Kings project, and the North-
west Indian Fisheries Commission to initiate state-led reforms of salmon and
steelhead hatcheries in Puget Sound and the marine coast of Washington State. Ap-
proximately $200,000 was available to the Service for these activities.
The Administration, however, is continuing to fund the Pacific Coast Salmon Re-
covery Fund in fiscal year 2002, which provides financial assistance to Pacific
Northwest State, local and tribal governments to conduct activities, such as those
under the Washington Hatchery Improvement Project, to restore Pacific salmon.
The Recovery Fund is included in the Department of Commerce budget proposal.
Question 19. Why is the production of both hatchery fish and fish eggs
down so significantly in fiscal year 02?
Answer 19: The Services 70 National Fish Hatcheries produce fish and fish eggs
to recover and restore troubled aquatic species, to help mitigate the deleterious ef-
fects of federal water projects, to meet tribal trust responsibilities, and help provide
recreational opportunities for the Nations 50 million licensed anglers.
Between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2000, the number of fish and fish eggs
produced by National Fish Hatcheries has been reduced by 8% and 16%, respec-
tively, as shown in the following table. In fiscal year 2001 this trend is expected
to continue with the number of fish and fish eggs decreasing by 1.4% and 2.5%, re-
spectively. The Fisheries Program has recently increased its focus on recovery and
restoration programs, which require fewer fish propagated under more rigorous sci-
entific controls. Because of this, some production from on-going restoration and re-
covery programs may be reduced to incorporate better science and technology. The
Service intends to produce a better quality fish that will have a greater chance of
survival in the wild which will enhance the recovery and restoration of aquatic spe-
cies.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
72

Question 20. Why are private hatcheries prohibited by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service from producing species like American sturgeon?
Answer 20: The Fish and Wildlife Service does not prohibit private hatcheries
from holding or producing sturgeon, unless the species is listed under the Endan-
gered Species Act, in which case a special permit is required. The Service has no
other jurisdiction over commercial sturgeon production.
The Services Southeast Region has recommended that the rearing of non-indige-
nous sturgeon species be avoided within watersheds that contain populations of na-
tive sturgeon, due to the potential for introduction of new diseases and the potential
for competition or hybridization with native species. There are currently at least ten
commercial producers of non-indigenous sturgeon in Florida alone. Best manage-
ment practices have been developed by the State of Florida to minimize the chances
for escapement. However, the effectiveness of these practices is unknown.
Commercial production of native species, such as the Atlantic sturgeon, presents
risks to wild populations. New markets and increased demand for native sturgeon
increases the potential for poaching wild fish. Additionally, native species bred for
desirable aquaculture traits, such as fast growth, may not retain the genetic diver-
sity needed to optimize survival in the wild. Escapement of aquaculture fish could
thereby lead to a swamping of wild gene pools with fish of limited genetic diver-
sity. The Services Southeast Region has recommended that genetic guidelines, simi-
lar to those established by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, be fol-
lowed for commercial production of native Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon and that best
management practices necessary to minimize chances for escapement be monitored
and enforced.
The Fish and Wildlife Service does regulate trade of several sturgeon species for
commercial purposes (e.g. caviar or flesh produced for international markets) under
the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), but that
does not affect production and sale within the U.S.
Question 21. What is the status of the Mescalero National Fish Hatchery
in New Mexico?
Answer 21: Operations at the Mescalero NFH were suspended in November 2000
as a result of chronic physical problems at the facility including: radon levels in the
hatchery building that at times greatly exceed OSHA allowable levels for human
safety; high nitrogen levels in the water; hard water that creates kidney stones in
older fish; and cracking raceways and buildings caused by unstable soil. In 1999
muddy, debris-laden water caused by a forest fire above the hatchery flooded the
hatchery killing all 230,000 rainbow trout and burying Carrillo Spring, one of the
hatcherys two main springs. In fiscal year 2000, the hatchery was flooded again,
killing 70,000 rainbow trout and burying Carrillo Spring again. The Service recog-
nized that without correcting the above problems, future fish production would be
tenuous as best and decided to terminate operations. The Mescalero Tribal Council
has passed a resolution supporting our decision to suspend operations. The Service
has met with the other tribes that receive fish from Mescalero NFH, and is working
closely with them to find a viable solution to this problem.
The Service is looking to replace the lost production at Mescalero by utilizing
other National Fish Hatcheries.
Question 22. Last year, Congress provided $400,000 to fund grants to
states for the portion of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act.
When this Subcommittee extended that Act two years ago, the Service stat-
ed that this was a priority and that your need was $3.5 million and $4.5 mil-
lion for state grants. Why does the Service refuse to ask for funding in-
creases for this program?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
73
Answer 22: The Service, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the eight
states in the Great Lakes have made progress in addressing the goals of the Great
Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act and implementing the recommendations of
the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. The Service has balanced
this funding need against all other National funding priorities.
In fiscal year 2000, the Services Fisheries Program reported accomplishing 112
projects in seven of the eight Great Lake states totaling $3.5 million to restore fish-
ery resources and combat invasive species. Since fiscal year 1998, the maximum
amount that the Service has requested under its authority in the Great Lakes Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Act is $1,278,000. The remaining funds are requested
under other Service authorities. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Service has pro-
vided $75,000 each year to fund restoration grants, as shown in the table below. In
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, Congress provided an additional $400,000
under the restoration grant authority. The Service has maximized the use of avail-
able funds to finance 27 recommended projects.

Question 23. This Subcommittee was involved with passing the Fisheries
Mitigation and Irrigation Partnership Act. Why did the Service fail to ask
for new funds under the authorities of the new Act? If this is a priority for
the Service, are you going to ask for funds in fiscal year 1903? If Congress
appropriated funds for this Act, how would you spend the money?
Answer 23: The Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act was signed
into law in November 2000, after unfunded operational needs were identified and
prioritized in the Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS) and after fiscal year
2002 budget development. The Service will identify regional priorities this summer.
The priorities can be used in both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, depending
on availability of funding.
If the additional funding were available, the Service would implement fish screen-
ing projects that provide major benefits in proportion to their costs and time re-
quirements (table below). In partnership with state, tribal, and local governments,
initial efforts would focus on known projects that can be undertaken without com-
plex planning and engineering and using existing implementation processes. As the
projects move forward, the Service would work with the Northwest states, tribes,
and other partners to systematically identify other high priority projects by: (1) de-
veloping a regional inventory and a prioritization and review process; (2) entering
into cooperative agreements with regional governments; (3) providing technical sup-
port; (4) implementing projects, and; (5) monitoring progress and accomplishments.
Service administrative costs are limited to no more than six percent of the overall
funding level of the program. The Service has not determined the direct costs for
program implementation. Generally, the Service would use 75 percent of the funding
for screening and passage facilities construction, equipment procurement, or modi-
fications to existing structures. No more than 25 percent of available funds would
be spent on coordination, planning and design.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
74

Question 24. The Service testified last year before this Subcommittee on
the importance and continued need for restoring striped bass during the
oversight hearing on the Striped Bass Act. Why does the Service fail to re-
quest full funding for this Act?
Answer 24: The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act authorizes a maximum
amount of $250,000 for the Service. The Services Fisheries Program utilizes a high-
er amount of general program funds to restore and manage striped bass. In fiscal
year 2000, the Service reported accomplishing 23 anadromous striped bass projects
in 7 states totaling $948,000 along the Atlantic Coast.
The Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and the Atlantic Coast States have restored most of the At-
lantic coast striped bass stocks under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act. The Service will continue to work with our partners to help prop-
erly manage these stocks. In other places, striped bass stocks remain below restora-
tion goals, and the Service will continue to participate in appropriate restoration ef-
forts.
Question 25. This Subcommittee intends to examine the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act. Please provide us with a detailed list of projects funded
in the past and the amount of funding provided for these efforts.
Answer 25: The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act authorizes the Secretaries of
the Interior and Commerce to enter into cooperative agreements with states and
other non-federal interests for the conservation, development, and enhancement of
anadromous fish, including those in the Great Lakes, and to contribute up to 50 per-
cent as the federal share of the cost of carrying out such agreements. The Act au-
thorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct investigations, engineering and bi-
ological surveys, research, stream clearance, and construction, maintenance and op-
erations of hatcheries and devices and structures for improving movement, feeding
and spawning conditions.
Enacted in 1965, the Act allowed the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with
states and others to rebuild the nations anadromous fish resources, which were
then at extremely low levels. For example, through a coordinated program among
the Service, other federal agencies, states, and private interests, the decline of At-
lantic Coast striped bass was reversed and stocks were restored to self-sustaining
status.
Between 1966 and 1992, the Fish and Wildlife Service contributed nearly $55 mil-
lion to fund over one thousand projects under the Act. The table below provides 23
examples, representative of projects funded through fiscal year 1991. However, no
funds have been appropriated under the Act since 1992.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
75

Question 26. How is the Service fulfilling its responsibilities to assist


State and Interstate Commissions in conserving coastal and anadromous
fishery resources?
Answer 26: The Service assists the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific States Marine Fish-
eries Commissions, which encompass 23 member states. In October 2000, the Atlan-
tic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions approved a joint resolution recog-
nizing Service contributions, including management assistance for coastal fisheries,
cooperative conservation programs for anadromous species, conservation and en-
hancement of coastal fisheries habitat, and research to provide information for state
and federal agencies to secure the public trust in coastal fishery resources. The reso-
lution called for strengthening the Services policies and programs that support the
states.
In compliance with the Atlantic Coastal Act, the Service supports the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in collecting, managing, and ana-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
76
lyzing fishery data; law enforcement; habitat conservation; fishery research; and
fishery management planning. The Service has official representation on ASMFCs
Policy Board, Management Boards, Technical Committees and Plan Review Teams.
We assist ASMFC in planning and implementing the Atlantic States Cooperative
Statistics Program. The Services Fisheries Program also maintains the striped bass
tagging database, which is relied upon by the ASMFC to manage the economically
important striped bass fishery.
The Service has three current Memoranda of Understanding with the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), encompassing Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration administrative funding, co-location and administration support for the
Services Gulf Coast Fisheries Coordination Office, and a study on the restoration
of striped bass in three Gulf of Mexico river systems. National Fish Hatcheries in
the southeast and southwest produce Gulf striped bass in support of GSMFC res-
toration efforts. The Service participates in the development and implementation of
the Fisheries Information Network (FIN) to improve the collection, management and
dissemination of recreational and commercial fisheries statistics in the Gulf of Mex-
ico and throughout the Southeast and Caribbean. GSMFC is an ex officio member
of the national Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, which Service co-chairs,
and is a member of the ANS Task Forces Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel, which ad-
dresses prevention and control of aquatic invasive species.
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is working to designate
the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a Wild and Scenic River to be managed
by the Service. The Service assists PSMFC in developing and maintaining a coordi-
nated marking and mark recovery program for west coast salmon and steelhead
populations. The Service provides financial support for the Regional Mark Proc-
essing Center, provides tag release and recovery information to the PSMFC Re-
gional Mark Processing Committee, and serves as a Committee member. The
Service participates in the development and implementation of the PSMFC
Streamnet database to improve collection, management, and dissemination of fish-
ery resource data for western and Pacific Coast states. The Service also works with
the PSMFC to prevent the spread of invasive species through dissemination of out-
reach material.
Activities of the Services National Wildlife Refuge System, Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program, and Coastal Program support the Commissions plans through
habitat protection and restoration. Under the Lacey Act and the Endangered Spe-
cies Act, Service Law Enforcement personnel routinely assist states in protecting
various anadromous fish and mollusk species. They work on task forces with the
states and National Marine Fisheries Service agents to protect both saltwater and
freshwater species around the country. The Service also provides funding from the
Sport Fish Restoration Fund to state marine fishery agencies to support restoration
of recreational fisheries, many of which are also harvested commercially. Each Com-
mission receives $200,000 annually in Sport Fish Restoration Funds. Additionally,
the PSMFC received $200,000 to support the Regional Mark Processing Center and
$200,000 to manage the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a Wild and Scenic
River.
Question 27. What is the outlook for restoring lake trout in the Great
Lakes in view of the 2000 Consent Decree in the treaty rights litigation U.S.
v Michigan and the Services request for increased funding to implement
the Decree?
Answer 27: The outlook is very optimistic, provided the parties to the consent de-
cree are able to match their intentions with solid funding commitments. The Au-
gust, 2000 Consent Decree provides an unprecedented opportunity to advance lake
trout restoration in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and to maintain success
achieved in eastern Lake Superior. For decades, efforts to restore lake trout have
been impeded by uncoordinated harvest management and controversy between an-
glers and tribal treaty fishers, as well as exotic species and the degraded environ-
ment of the Great Lakes. The 20-year Consent Decree makes lake trout restoration
a joint focus of tribal governments and the State of Michigan, who share the harvest
and management of fisheries in 19,000 square miles of treaty waters. Public support
for lake trout restoration has never been greater. The Michigan United Conserva-
tion Clubs, representing 500 affiliated clubs and nearly 100,000 members, partici-
pated in negotiations leading to the Decree and expressed strong support for the set-
tlement, especially the priority placed on lake trout restoration.
Successful implementation will depend on efforts by all parties to the settlement.
The tribes and State of Michigan are required to closely manage lake trout harvest.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for assessing lake trout populations,
monitoring fisheries, providing third party technical consultation and advice, and
expanding annual lake trout production by about one million yearlings. The

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
77
Services National Fish Hatcheries have reared and stocked over 15 million quality
lake trout yearlings into restoration zones during the past five years, a strategy that
has proved successful in restoration of lake trout in Lake Superior. Stocked lake
trout in restoration zones of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are nearing abundance
levels where reproduction could begin on historically important spawning reefs. The
Decree also recognizes the need for effective control of the parasitic sea lamprey, es-
pecially in the St. Marys River, where newly developed control methods have mark-
edly reduced lake trout mortality. Parties to the Consent Decree also agree that re-
search is needed to identify other factors limiting lake trout reproduction.
The Presidents fiscal year 2002 Budget Request includes $1.2 million for the
Great Lakes Consent Decree. Funds will be administered through the Fisheries Pro-
gram and will allow the Service to comply with the objectives outlined in the Con-
sent Decree. Funding for the Hatchery system will enhance the lake trout rehabili-
tation program by increasing propagation and hatchery product evaluation in order
to meet aggressive production goals for restoration of native lake trout. Funding for
the Management Assistance Program will support stock assessment, lake trout
stocking and biological and management assistance to tribal and state partners. In
addition, the fiscal year 2002 construction request includes $940,000: $200,000 for
the planning and design phase to replace the M/V Togue lake trout stocking vessel
and $740,000 for Iron River NFH to replace the domes at the Schacte Creek with
a structurally supported building. Full follow-on funding to complete these projects
is included in the five-year plan: $2.46 million for Iron River NFH in fiscal year
2003 and $4.3 million in fiscal year 2004 for replacing the M/V Togue. This will pro-
vide a total of $7.7 million in construction.
Question 28. What are the prospects for recovery of listed fish species
that have been the subject of long-term recovery efforts such as Apache
trout, Gila trout and greenback cutthroat trout?
Answer 28: Prospects for recovery of the Apache trout, Gila trout, and greenback
cutthroat trout are excellent. Due to the long-term recovery efforts, these species are
on the brink of de-listing or down-listing. Coordinated recovery actions, including
habitat restoration, removal of non-natives, and establishment of new populations
through captive propagation have proven to be an effective formula for successful
recovery of healthy, self-sustaining wild populations. Continued progress towards re-
covery, however, depends upon continued support and funding for recovery activi-
ties.
The Gila trout Recovery Team has recently recommended down-listing the Gila
trout from endangered to threatened, and the Service expects to propose this action
in late 2001. Recovery goals, including protecting and replicating the four known
non-hybridized lineages, have been met. Habitat destruction and interbreeding with
non-native rainbow trout, the main causes of the decline, have been remedied
through removal of non-natives, construction of stream barriers to exclude non-na-
tives, and the seeding of genetically appropriate new populations through captive
propagation. Moving fish into emergency refugia, has also been important in the
recovery process, thereby saving remnant or newly replicated populations from cata-
strophic conditions and speeding recovery. Criteria for de-listing have been devel-
oped as part of the revised recovery plan.
A proposal to de-list the Apache trout is expected by December 2003. Recovery
of the species requires replication of at least 13 lineages, comprising 30 populations.
To date, five lineages have been replicated and 24 populations have been estab-
lished. Eight populations remain to be replicated, along with the construction of five
stream barriers (21 are now in place), which will result in 32 self-sustaining popu-
lations. The Fish & Wildlife Service, Forest Service, State of Arizona, and White
Mountain Apache Tribe have made great strides toward the removal of threats (non-
native trout and habitat destruction) and the de-listing of the Apache trout.
The greenback cutthroat trout is within two populations of the recovery criterion
of 20 stable reproducing populations. Eighteen populations have been established,
representing the Arkansas River and South Platte River drainages. Removal of non-
native fish and introduction of captive propagated fish have been key to progress
towards recovery. It is expected to take approximately five years to establish and
document long-term persistence of the two remaining populations. A coordinated,
long range management plan and cooperative agreement must also be completed
prior to de-listing. Competition and interbreeding with non-native brook and brown
trout were the primary factors in the decline of the species.
Question 29. Why is the Refuge Program trying to ban tournament fish-
ing from all National Wildlife Refuges and recreational fishing from other
units?
Answer 29: The Service is not trying to ban tournament fishing from all National
Wildlife Refuges and recreational fishing from other units. We published the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
78
proposed Recreational Fishing chapter (605 FW 3.1) and several other chapters re-
lating to Refuge System management in the Federal Register on January 16, 2001.
Section 3.13(I) of the proposal states that tournament fishing would be allowed if
the event builds appreciation for and an understanding of fish and wildlife re-
sources, does not reasonably interfere with other refuge visitors, and if prizes of only
nominal value are awarded. Similar wording was used in the proposed Appropriate
Uses Chapter (603 FW 1) published for comment at the same time.
The Service has received substantial comment on the proposed change. We will
review all comments and will make necessary changes to the policy to ensure it pro-
vides the best possible guidance to our managers. The Service has already entered
into discussions with major fishing organizations, including those which support
tournaments, in order to craft a revision which will meet the need fishing public
and sound refuge management.
The Service continues to strongly support recreational fishing as an appropriate
and wholesome form of outdoor recreation. Over 300 National Wildlife Refuges are
open to fishing, and that number increases each year. The Refuge System offers
visitors some of the greatest opportunities available to get out and go fishing and
our policy will ensure that tradition continues.
Question 30. Describe the goals of the Landowner Incentive Program?
When will authorizing legislation be submitted to Congress?
Answer 30: The new $50 million Landowner Incentive Program under the Land
and Water Conservation Fund will increase the capability of states, the District of
Columbia, territories, and tribes to provide technical and financial assistance to pri-
vate landowners through the establishment of a matching grants program. This as-
sistance will establish or supplement existing landowner incentives programs to pro-
tect and manage habitat for federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other
at-risk species, while continuing to engage in traditional land use practices.
The Presidents budget included appropriations language to provide authority for
the appropriation of funds for these programs, but we look forward to working with
the authorizing Committees to fully develop this program in future years.
Question 31. Describe the intent of the Private Stewardship Grant Pro-
gram? Isnt this a new unauthorized program?
Answer 31: The purpose of the Private Stewardship Grant Program is to establish
a nationally competitive grants process that will provide funding and other assist-
ance to individuals and groups engaged in private conservation efforts that benefit
federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species. The Presi-
dents budget includes recommended language to provide authority for the appro-
priation of funds for this program. Again, however, look forward to working with
you to fully develop this program in future years.
Question 32. How many acres will be conserved in fiscal year 1902 under
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act?
Answer 32: The fiscal year 2002 request for the North American Wetlands Con-
servation Act is $14,912,000. These funds will benefit an estimated 409,000 acres.
Question 33. What is the rationale for the huge increase in the amount
of excise taxes that will be allocated to the Sport Fish Restoration Account
in fiscal year 1902?
Answer 33: The large difference that exists between the Sport Fish Restoration
(SFR) interest of $41.884 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and the revised interest esti-
mate of $83 million (The fiscal year 2001 interest estimate has recently been revised
from $88 million to $83 million to more accurately reflect the lower yields caused
by declining interest rates.) in Fiscal Year 2001 for the following two reasons:
1. Some investments matured on Saturday, September 30, 2000, the last day of
fiscal year 2000. This timing meant the interest earned from these investments
could not be credited to the SFR Account until the next business day, Monday,
October 2, 2000 which falls in fiscal year 2001. Since interest earned is treated
using the cash basis method and not the accrual method of accounting, approxi-
mately $18 million in interest was not credited until Fiscal Year 2001. This
caused a decrease in the fiscal year 2000 interest amount while increasing the
fiscal year 2001 interest amount. If this had not occurred, the interest earned
in fiscal year 2000 would have been $59.828 million.
2. For fiscal year 2001, approximately $1.0 billion of SFR funds will be invested
through the Aquatic Resource Trust Fund. The investment term, developed in
coordination with Service partners involved in SFR funds management, is ex-
pected to yield approximately $65 million in interest for fiscal year 2001. This
amount plus the $18 million which accrued in fiscal year 2000 and was credited
to fiscal year 2001 totals the interest estimate of $83 million. Thus, if the $18
million had not been credited to fiscal year 2001, the fiscal year 2001 interest

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
79
estimate of $65 million would have been approximately $5 million higher than
the amount earned in fiscal year 2000 ($59.828 million).
Question 34. When will an Assistant Director be named for the Federal
Aid Program as required by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Pro-
gram Improvement Act of 2000?
Answer 34: An Assistant Director for Migratory Birds and State Programs was
established and filled by the Director in July, 2000, prior to enactment of the new
Federal Aid legislation. This Assistant Director is responsible for the administra-
tion, management, and oversight of the Federal Assistance Program for State Wild-
life and Sport Fish Restoration for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Question 35. When will the Department allocate the Multi-state Conserva-
tion Grant money to the states for the current fiscal year?
Answer 35: As directed by the Fish and Wildlife Programs Improvement Act of
2000, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies delivered a list of
projects for funding under the Multi-state Conservation Grant Program. The Service
Director approved the list of projects and the Division of Federal Aid obtained the
information necessary to process the grants from the recipients. The Division of Fed-
eral Aid then completed processing the 14 project grants. Federal Aid has finalized
the grant agreements and made available the proper funding for electronic transfer
of funds to the recipients using the Department of Health and Human Services
Smartlink processing software in their Payment Management System. The Division
of Federal Aid is working with each recipient to implement each grant.
Question 36. What is the status of the additional $7.5 million that was au-
thorized in fiscal year 1901 for Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and
Safety Program grants?
Answer 36: The funds were apportioned to the states, commonwealths, and Terri-
tories as defined in the Act and are now available for obligation to Hunter Edu-
cation Program grants.
In concert with states, non-governmental organizations, and Federal Aid staff, the
Service developed interim policy for the use of these funds. A set of questions and
answers was developed to deal with the complex issues brought up by use of these
funds. The policy addresses appropriate use, obligations, deobligations, and reappor-
tionment of these funds in future years. We plan to see how this policy resolves
issues this year and, under the direction of a confirmed Service Director, develop
permanent policy in the form of changes to the appropriate FWS Manual chapter
next year.
Question 37. What type of projects are likely to be initially approved
under the Great Ape Conservation Fund?
Answer 37: The Service has received more than 50 proposals for great ape con-
servation projects under the Great Ape Conservation Fund. Priority consideration
will be given to those proposals that enhance the conservation of great apes by ad-
dressing human-great ape conflict; strengthening compliance with CITES or other
applicable laws; implementing conservation education; and developing sound sci-
entific information on, or methods for monitoring great ape habitat, populations and
trends, or current and projected threats to habitat or populations. The Service re-
cently awarded its first grant under this Fund for orangutan conservation in
Gunung Palulng National Park, Indonesia. This grant will provide assistant to es-
tablish conservation education programs and build capacity of local community and
government staff to protect the park from illegal logging and hunting.
Question 38. Why did the Administration not request any funding for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account?
Answer 38: The Presidents fiscal year 2002 budget request provides adequate
funding, given the overall priorities and resources available, to fund the highest pri-
ority projects that qualify for funding under the Multinational Species Conservation
Funds.
Question 39. What is the status of the proposed regulations on Light
Geese, DoubleCrested Cormorants and Resident Canada Geese?
Answer 391 (Light Geese): The Service is preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of a range of long-term solutions to the im-
pacts of light goose over-population on the human environment. Light geese include
greater snow geese, lesser snow geese, and Ross geese. In May 1999, the Service
announced its intent to prepare an EIS on light goose management. The public
scoping phase was completed in November 1999 and a draft EIS was made available
for public review and comment in October 2001. Following review of the publics
comments, a final EIS document will be completed in 2002.
Answer 392 (Double-crested Cormorants): In dealing with cormorant conflicts,
the Service cooperates with state agencies, private individuals, and USDAs Wildlife
Services program to implement appropriate control measures where warranted. The

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
80
Service has released for public comment a draft EIS that: (1) evaluates the extent
of cormorant impacts to fisheries and other natural resources; (2) analyzes the envi-
ronmental effects of alternative management actions; and, (3) re-examines current
cormorant depredation policy. After publishing a notice of intent announcing the
EIS in the Federal Register in November 1999, the Service held public scoping
meetings at 12 locations around the country that generated more than 1,400 com-
ments regarding issues and concerns related to cormorant management. Following
public review and comment, a final EIS document will be completed in the Spring
of 2002.
Answer 393 (Resident Canada Geese): A draft EIS and proposed rule will be
available for public review in late July, 2001. Following public review and comment,
a final EIS document will be completed in December, 2001. Canada geese that nest
and reside predominantly within the U.S. have increased exponentially and are in-
creasingly coming into conflict with human activities. Overall, complaints related to
personal and public property, agricultural damage, concerns related to human
health and safety, and other public conflicts are increasing. New and innovative ap-
proaches and strategies for dealing with bird/human conflicts will be needed because
of the unique locations where these geese nest, feed, and reside. The Service, with
the full assistance and cooperation of the Flyway Councils and Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (APHIS/WS), will develop a long-term
strategy for the management of these birds. The result of this approach should pro-
vide states with more management flexibility and authority to deal with resident
Canada geese while increasing the commitment to establish population goals and
objectives, management planning, and population monitoring.
Question 40. Does the Service anticipate any additional auctions of sur-
plus products from the National Wildlife Property Repository in Denver in
fiscal year 2002?
Answer 40: No. The Service does not plan to auction any surplus wildlife products
from the National Wildlife Property Repository in fiscal year 2002. The items auc-
tioned in 1999 represented a 10-year accumulation of common commercial products,
such as boots and belts, that were made from species that could lawfully be sold
and that were not needed or appropriate for conservation education.
Question 41. On May 5, 1999, a group of Americans living outside of Chi-
cago, Illinois, were raided by special agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for alleged violations of U.S. wildlife laws. At this point, nearly two
years later, no one has been indicted in this case. However, two of those
Americans who were raided killed themselves. Several of those Ameri-
cans allege that their constitutional rights were denied. For example,
search warrants apparently were not served, legal representation was de-
nied and personal property, including phone logs and unrelated wildlife
trophies, were removed and have not been returned. What is the status of
this case? What is the truth about these allegations and what steps are
taken to ensure that the rights of all Americans are protected? Why was
it necessary to conduct this raid at 6:30 in the morning? Is it normal proce-
dure to retain citizens incommunicado in their homes, while law enforce-
ment agents search for alleged wildlife violations? Is it legal to harvest cap-
tive bred lions and generic tigers which are not protected under the En-
dangered Species Act? If it is illegal, then please cite the appropriate legis-
lative statues that prohibit the harvest of these animals.
Answer 41: We recently received complaints concerning the execution of a search
warrant by Service special agents at a location near Chicago, Illinois, on May 5,
1999. The Service found nothing to substantiate any of the allegations of misconduct
made against our agents. We are, however, cooperating fully with the Department
of the Interior Office of Inspector General (OIG), which is conducting an inde-
pendent investigation into the complaints concerning this search.
At the request of the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the prosecution of the Chi-
cago subjects investigated by the Service for wildlife violations, the OIG has delayed
its administrative investigation into the allegations of misconduct until completion
of the criminal proceedings. No information is thus available from the OIG review,
and we cannot comment further on any of the specific allegations made by the com-
plainants.
The search in question was conducted in connection with a Service investigation
into the illegal take and commercialization of endangered species, primarily big cats
including tigers, leopards, and jaguars. That investigation also remains open at this
time. Evidence compiled by Service special agents has been submitted to various
U.S. Attorneys offices. One individual in western Michigan has been found guilty
of a felony Lacey Act violation related to the sale of three tiger skins, and prosecu-
tion efforts are underway in several other judicial districts.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
81
The major U.S. wildlife laws enforced by the Service, including the Endangered
Species Act, authorize Service officers to obtain and serve search warrants in the
process of investigating possible wildlife violations. To obtain a search warrant, offi-
cers must show a federal judge or U.S. magistrate that there is probable cause to
believe that evidence of a violation of federal law will be found at the premises. A
federal search warrant describes the objects that officers may search for and seize;
property not described in the warrant may also be seized if it constitutes evidence
of other illegal activity.
Unless otherwise directed by the issuing judge or magistrate, federal search war-
rants may be served anytime between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Search warrants are often
served in the morning to increase the likelihood that the search can be completed
during daytime hours and that someone occupying the premises will be present and
aware of the search. Individuals present during the execution of a search warrant
may freely leave the premises.
Tigers are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act at the species
level. All tigers, including those commonly referred to as generic, are thus pro-
tected under this law, which generally prohibits the killing of listed animals, even
if they were bred in captivity. Although the Service has relaxed registration require-
ments for those breeding generic tigers, take of these and other protected captive-
bred animals is only permissible if it enhances the propagation or survival of the
species. While euthanizing an ill or aged animal would be legal, hunting generic ti-
gers or harvesting them for the subsequent interstate or international sale of their
skins or parts is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.
African lions are not protected under the Endangered Species Act. These big cats
are, however, regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, a federal law administered
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. State or local statutes may also regulate the
possession and treatment of lions, including specimens bred in captivity.
Question 42. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, the Depart-
ment of the Interior received $50 million to distribute to the States for non-
game grants. What is the status of those grants?
Answer 42: The fiscal year 2001Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act (Public Law 106553), provided $50 million to fund states, wild-
life conservation, wildlife conservation education, and wildlife-associated recreation
projects, with a focus on species with the greatest conservation need. The Act cre-
ated a subaccount under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act for a Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Program (WCRP), a formula-based apportionment to
the 56 states and territories. There has been considerable communication and co-
operation among the Service, the states, and the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies during the implementation of this new Program.
One new requirement established by the Act was for states to submit a Com-
prehensive Plan (Plan) for approval prior to being eligible to receive grants under
the Act. Of the 56 states and territories, 29 had submitted their Plans by April 16,
and all but one had submitted their Plans by May 2. Submission of a Plan by a
state constitutes a commitment to develop and begin implementing, within 5 years,
a Wildlife Conservation Strategy that will facilitate the identification of the states
greatest wildlife conservation needs. Each Plan must substantiate the authority and
capability of the state to implement the WCRP and indicate public input and par-
ticipation.
The Service has facilitated the delivery of these new funds to the states through
three significant actions. It has: (1) developed and distributed WCRP implementa-
tion guidelines that make program requirements and planning clearer, (2) sponsored
three regional workshops in cooperation with and for state and regional Federal Aid
partners to promote implementation, and (3) established a WCRP Plan Eligibility
Determination Team (with Federal and State members), which has met three times
and forwarded recommendations to the Director to approve 51 of the 55 Comp Plans
submitted to date.
The Team anticipates completion of its review and recommendations for all 56
state and territory WCRP Comp Plans by the end of June 2001. Two states have
already submitted grants for specific projects to Service Federal Aid Regional Of-
fices.
Question 43. The Act also required that the $50 million be invested and
that the interest on that investment be made available to the North Amer-
ican Wetlands Office for the purchase of critical habitat. Were those funds
invested? How were they invested- daily securities or monthly securi-
ties? How much interest money was obtained from this investment?
Answer 43: The funding appropriated for Wildlife Conservation and Restoration
was invested on March 21, 2001. The funds are invested in a combination of Treas-
ury one-day and monthly securities. As of April 30, 2001, $216,696 is interest had

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
82
been earned. As of May 31, 2001, the estimated earnings from these investments
will be approximately $396,000.
Question 44. The Wild Bird Conservation Act was passed in 1992 to stem
the trade in wild-caught birds perceived as unsustainable by the Congress.
The Act set about to regulate the import of wild birds into the United
States by prohibiting unsustainable import. The law provided that excep-
tions could be made through the issuance of permits for personal pets, zoo-
logical display, scientific research and for cooperative breeding programs.
Congress also mandated that the Act be implemented in such a manner as
to assist wild bird conservation and management programs in foreign
countries, and encourage and promote captive breeding in the United
States. Regulations for permits were finalized in 1993, but aviculturists
have complained that the permit process, under which Congress had in-
tended to allow birds clubs and groups to import birds for cooperative
breeding projects, was not working as promised, and target times of 6090
days for approval were not being met. Also a problem was the Services tar-
diness in completing regulation allowing imports of birds from foreign cap-
tive breeding facilities, and for birds sustainably harvested from the wild.
In September 1995 a hearing was held by this Subcommittee to address
these and other problems in the WBCA implementation.
At that hearing, Mr. Marshall Jones, then Deputy Director for Inter-
national Affairs for the USFWS, testified that regulation for imports of
sustainably taken birds from foreign countries was to be implemented by
the end of the year. He further testified that the regulations providing for
approval of foreign captive breeding facilities would be finalized by early
next year. Please clarify for the Subcommittee the following questions:
Question 441. When were these final rules published? If they were not
published in the time frames projected by Mr. Marshall Jones, why not?
Answer 441: The regulations for approving sustainable-use management plans
under the WBCA, which would allow the import of wild-caught birds sustainably
taken in foreign countries, were published in final form on January 24, 1996. The
regulations for approving foreign captive-breeding facilities are still pending, and
under review by the Department.
Question 442. How many sustainably taken birds have been imported
into the United States since the oversight hearing was held in September
of 1995?
Answer 442: To date, we have only received one completed application to develop
a sustainable use management plan for an exotic species within a range State. The
Service obtained public comment on the application and is currently finalizing a pro-
posed rule on the Argentina sustainable use management plan for blue-fronted ama-
zon parrots (Amazona aestiva). Approval of this program will result in the first im-
port of wild sustainably taken birds permitted under this program.
Question 443. How many foreign captive breeding facilities have been
approved under the WBCA?
Answer 443: No foreign captive-breeding facilities have been approved because
the regulations for this activity are still pending (see response to 1).
Question 444. How many cooperative breeding group applications have
been submitted since 1993? Please list those that have been approved.
Please list those that have been denied. Please list the times required for
a decision to be made on each application submitted, and the time required
for each first import to be made under permit?
Answer 444: The Service has received 26 complete applications for cooperative
breeding programs since 1993. Following are the currently approved cooperative
breeding programs:
The Peregrine Fund, Inc (CB003); Species: harpy eagle.
Dan L. Pike (CB004); Species: European sparrowhawk, European goshawk, red-
napped shaheen, two non-native subspecies of Aplomado falcon.
Northern Plains Breeding Co-op(CB005); Species: European goshawk, European
sparrowhawk, Spanish peregrine falcon, European peregrine falcon, Australian
peregrine falcon, South American peregrine falcon.
Toucan Preservation Center (CB006); Species: keel-billed toucan, red-breasted
toucan, saffron toucanet, chestnut-eared aracari, spot-billed toucanet, ariel
toucan, channel-billed toucan, toco toucan.
Hill Country Aviaries, L.L.C. (CB009); Species: fiery-shouldered conure, Hoff-
mans conure, white-eared conure, green-cheeked conure, blue mutation, pearly
conure, crimson-bellied conure painted conure, and rose-crowned conure.
AFA Red Siskin Recovery Project (CB012); Species: red siskin.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
83
The Lory and Hanging Parrot Breeding Consortium (CB013); Species: Papuan
lory, fairy lorikeet, whiskered lorikeet, Duyvenbodes lory, Philippine hanging
parrot.
Northern Kentucky Falconers Association Breeding Cooperative (CB014); Spe-
cies: saker falcon, sooty falcon, red-headed falcon, Bonellis eagle, greater spot-
ted eagle.
Solomon Islands Consortium (CB016); Species: cardinal lory, yellow-bibbed lory,
coconut (massenas) lorikeet, palm lorikeet, duchess lorikeet, Ducorps cockatoo.
Monk Parakeet Breeding Consortium (CB017); Species: Monk, or Quaker para-
keet (captive-bred specimens only).
Cooperative Breeding Program for Gracula religiosa (CB018); Species: Javan hill
mynah, Sumatran hill mynah, greater Indian hill mynah.
Turaco Cooperative Breeding Program (CB019); Species: great blue turaco, grey
plantain-eater, Rosss plantain-eater, violacous plantain-eater, red-crested
turaco, Fischers turaco, Hartlaubs turaco, white-cheeked turaco, white-crested
turaco, Livingstons turaco, green-crested turaco, violet-crested turaco, Schalows
turaco.
Utah Falconers Cooperative Breeding Program (CB020); Species: European gos-
hawk, European sparrowhawk, black sparrowhawk, English peregrine, Cassini
peregrine, black shaheen, saker falcon, red-headed falcon.
Coastal Carolina Conure Breeding Program (CB022); Species: fiery-shouldered
conure, rose-crowned conure, rose-fronted conure.
Cardinal Cooperative Breeding Program (CB023); Species: red-crested cardinal,
yellow-billed cardinal.
Crowned Pigeon Cooperative Breeding Program (CB024); Species: blue crowned
pigeon, lesser blue crowned pigeon, Scheepmakers crowned pigeon, Sclaters
crowned pigeon, Victoria crowned pigeon, Beccari crowned pigeon.
Fig Parrot Consortium (CB025); Species: orange-breasted fig parrot, double-eyed
fig parrot, Desmarests fig parrot, Edwards fig parrot, Salvadoris fig parrot.
Blue Headed Macaw Cooperative Breeding Program (CB026); Species: blue-
headed macaw.
Love Bird Cooperative Breeding Program (CB028);Species: Abyssinian lovebird,
black-cheeked lovebird, Madagascar lovebird, nyasa lovebird, red-faced lovebird.
Cut-throat Finch, North American Cooperative Breeding Program (CB029); Spe-
cies: East African Cut-throat Finch, color mutations.
The following cooperative breeding program applications were denied:
World Center for Exotic Birds (CB001); Species: various species of parrots,
raptors and miscellaneous non-endangered species.
William A. McClure (CB002); Species: yellow-crowned amazon parrot.
International Aviculturists Society (CB007): Species: hyacinth macaw.
Jerry Blocker (CB011); Species: Eurasian eagle owl, Lanner falcon, saker falcon,
tawny eagle.
Richard Cusick (CB021); Species: green-cheeked conure (blue mutation), painted
conure, rose-crowned conure, blue-throated conure.
COM USA, Inc. (CB027); Species: red siskin.
We received the first cooperative breeding program application in February 1994.
The applicant requested approval for a cooperative breeding program to include var-
ious parrot and raptor species as well as several non-endangered species. We cor-
responded with the applicant for over a year in order to obtain the necessary infor-
mation to complete the application. We required approximately six months to make
a determination on that completed application. In reviewing an application, we must
publish a Federal Register notice and open a 30-day comment period. In many cases
we must also consult with the range state(s) for the species - often a prolonged proc-
ess. The approval process for cooperative breeding programs has been a learning ex-
perience, and reviewing an application has often required more time than we would
have liked. The process is, however, improving. For the three applications received
in 2000, one applicant required three and a half months to provide adequate infor-
mation to complete the application and two of the applications were complete upon
receipt. We required almost five months to make a determination on one of these
applications and the other two took our office approximately two months each. We
feel confident that the timely review of future cooperative breeding program applica-
tions will continue.
Once a cooperative breeding program is approved, members of the program must
submit an application for the actual importation of birds. Of the 20 programs that
have been approved, only 15 have requested and received permits to import birds.
For the first import application from an approved cooperative breeding program, the
permits are issued on average within 45 days.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
84
Question 445. Please list all funds collected from fines and penalties
under the WBCA. Please indicate the amounts from these fines which were
allocated to the Wild Bird Conservation Fund, as directed by the Congress.
Please list the disposition of any funds from these sources which were not
turned over to the Wild Bird Conservation Fund.
Answer 445: The Service has collected $7,450 in fines and $1,600 in penalties
specifically under the authority of Section 114 of the Wild Bird Conservation Act
(WBCA). Funds of $200 were allocated to the Special Victim Witness Fund and $250
was allocated to the Lacey Act Reward Account. The remainder of these funds was
allocated to the General Treasury and tracked internally as collected under the
WBCA since the Wild Bird Conservation Fund has not yet been established. Once
the fund is established, we are committed to working with Treasury to transfer the
funds. Because the WBCA does not have any provisions for forfeiture of wildlife or
associated property, most violations are charged under other statutes such as the
Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act. Fines for violations of these two Acts
are deposited into another account used by the Service for the care and handling
of seized and forfeited wildlife. Fines and penalties under the WBCA, therefore, are
limited.
Since January 1995, the Service has collected $6,000 in fines and $60,910 in pen-
alties under the Endangered Species Act for violations involving live birds subject
to the WBCA. The Service collected $600 in fines and $5,750 in penalties under the
Lacey Act for violations involving live birds subject to the WBCA. The Service col-
lected $400 in fines and $1,800 in penalties under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
for violations involving birds subject to the WBCA, and $1,392 in penalties for viola-
tions under other federal and state laws involving birds subject to the WBCA. In
order to determine if any of these fines or penalties should be deposited into the
Wild Bird Conservation Fund once it is established, we would be required to conduct
a detailed review of each case.
Question 446. Please list the bird conservation and management projects
the USFWS has supported in range countries, the name and address of the
project manager, and all sums expended thereunder, or assistance of any
kind provided.
Answer 446: Although the Service has not funded any projects under the Wild
Bird Conservation Fund, our Winged Ambassadors initiative has more than 18
years of cooperative projects for conserving migratory birds throughout Latin Amer-
ica and the Caribbean. This initiative comes under the auspices of the Convention
on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. Under
the Winged Ambassadors initiative, the Service has worked with over a dozen Car-
ibbean Islands to develop local pride in native and migratory birds, conduct out-
reach campaigns, and conserve vulnerable species, such as the West Indian whis-
tling duck and a number of endemic parrots. It has assisted in Mexico to develop
self-sustaining eco-tourism enterprises in rural communities and is active in South
America to reverse the intensive destruction of North American migratory species
such as osprey, Swainsons hawk, Dick Cissel, the latter species being slaughtered
by the hundreds of thousand each year on its wintering grounds.
Question 447. Please list the amounts of money the Administration has
requested each year since 1992 for implementation of the Wild Bird Con-
servation Act?
Answer 447: The Service received an allocation of $500,000 in fiscal year 1993
for implementation of the WBCA. That increase was subsequently included in the
base funding for the International Wildlife Trade subactivity and serves as the fund-
ing necessary to continue to implement the WBCA. No funds have been requested
for the grant component of the WBCA.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:12 Mar 06, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6011 72133.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1